
* : ir ' % 

4r *-V- V, 

,-V*‘ -i » I rf✓ •- 




«•;■» '»‘«v*"5 Sr 





































































































































l library of congress,"? 

f _ n)! 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 









































































\ 




























































V 




























SPOFFORDKELLOGG CONTESTED ELECTION CASE. 

UNITED STATES SENATE. 


BRIEF 


OF 


RICHARD T. MERRICK, 

OF COUNSEL 

FOR 


HON. HENRY M. SPOFFORD, 


WITH ANALYTICAL INDEX TO THE TESTIMONY. 

















SPOFFORD-KELLOGG CONTESTED ELECTION CASE. 

» 

UNITED STATES SENATE. 


BRIEF 



BICHARD T. M ERRICK, 

OF COUNSEL 



FOR 

HON. HENRY M. SPOFFORD, 

« 


WITH ANALYTICAL INDEX TO THE TESTIMONY. 






















BRIEF OF RICHARD T. MERRICK, OF COUNSEL FOR MEMORI¬ 
ALIST. 


HENRY M. SPOFFORD vs. WM. PITT KELLOGG. 


CONTESTED ELECTION, UNITED STATES SENATE. 


The committee having expressed the desire that counsel should pre¬ 
sent a brief rather than an argument, I propose to submit the points 
arising in the case without elaborating them to any great extent. 

I attach to this brief the record in the first investigation, marked Ap¬ 
pendix A, and an analytical index of the testimony, marked Anpeudix 
B. 


It becomes necessary, in the first instance, to ascertain and determine 
the exact nature and attitude of the case now before the committee. 

The petition of the memorialist sets forth that he was duly chosen by 
the legislature of Louisiana, on the 24th day of April, 1877, to represent 
that State in the Senate of the United States for the term of six years, 
commencing the 4th of March, 1877, and ending the 3d of March, 1883; 
that William Pitt Kellogg claims to have been elected a United States 
Senator from said State for the same term, above specified, by another 
and different legislature, but that in fact the said bofiv was not the leg¬ 
islature of said State, and that said Kellogg, therefore, derived no right 
to represent said State from said pretended election; that a partial and 
imperfect investigation of the respective claims of the memorialist and 
the said Kellogg to a seat in the Senate had been theretofore made, and 
that in said investigation the case of the memorialist was not fully 
heard, and that the committee to which the subject had been referred 
denied him the opportunity of introducing certain evidence in his be¬ 
half, competent to be considered, and material to a just and proper de¬ 
termination of the case. After various other averments, the petition 
continues as follows: 

That for tlie reasons aforesaid petitioner’s case against the said Kellogg never had a 
full examination and hearing upon its merits, either in the committee or in the Senate, 
and should therefore, petitioner most respectfully submits, be re-examined to the end that 
justice may be done. 

The petition then sets forth certain proceedings of the legislature of 
Louisiana which took place subsequent to the adoption by the Senate 
of the resolution admitting the said Kellogg as a member of that body, 
and alleges the existence of certain material and relevant facts which 
petitioner has u very recently discovered,” and says in regard to them 
as follows : u All of which petitioner offers to prove upon a review of the 
case. v 

This petition having been referred, the Senate subsequently passed 
1 MER 





2 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


a resolution instructing tbe Committee on Privileges and Elections to 
inquire “into the matters alleged ” therein, and authorizing them to 
take testimony in the premises, administer oaths, and send for persons 
and papers. The resolution contains other instructions affecting the 
general subject, reference to which is not necessary at this time. 

The committee,' therefore, now has before it for consideration a motion 
to rehear and review the original case between the memorialist and the 
sitting member, which must be determined by an examination of the 
record as made up in that case, supplemented by the new evidence 
taken by the committee in execution of the instructions given to it by 
the Senate. 

This, therefore, not being an original case, as between the memorialist 
and the sitting member , but a motion to reopen and review the case here¬ 
tofore determined, the entire record in that case, embracing everything 
done in the premises, from the period of its initiation to the present 
time, and including all evidence adduced on either side, and all agree¬ 
ments and admissions of parties made therein, is open before the com¬ 
mittee. 

These preliminary suggestions, apart from their importance to a cor¬ 
rect and just appreciation of the questions of law-involved in this inves¬ 
tigation, have been made necessary by the observations of some of the 
members of the committee, indicating an impression that no evidence 
should be considered in the inquiry except such as had been taken by 
the committee under the authority of the present reference. 

The case of the memorialist rests upon the following 

PROPOSITIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 

1. The memorialist was in the original case arbitrarily denied by the 
committee the opportunity and l ight of producing material evidence in 
his behalf, as appears from the record of the proceedings therein, and 
as also appears from the minority report of said committee, made to the 
Senate May 2G, A. D. 1877 ( see Report No. 16, p. 0, first session, forty - 
fifth Congress) ; and more particularly that he, the said memorialist, 
was denied the opportunity and right of introducing certain evidence 
set forth in No. 4 of the propositions by him submitted to said commit¬ 
tee, to the effect that William Pitt Kellogg, the then governorof Louisi¬ 
ana, had participated in the irregularities and frauds of the returning 
board of said State by which the so-called Packard legislature came 
into being, notice of the consequence of the denial of such right and 
privilege having been given in the said report of the minority of said 
committee in the following words : 

Besides, it cannot be truly said that the respective claims of the contestants have 
been decided upon their “ substantial merits,” when oue of them is not allowed to pro¬ 
duce material testimony which he offers and is anxious to produce ; and it may be that 
a decision made by the Senate now, without fair opportunity to produce such testi¬ 
mony, may be reviewed and reversed at some future time. 

2. On the hearing of the case of the memorialist and the sitting mem¬ 
ber, “all the facts and questions of law involving the validity of the 
election” of said William Pitt Kellogg were not “fully known and pre¬ 
sented to the Senate.” * And since the date of the determination of the 
Senate in that case the supreme court of Louisiana has decided that in 
January, 1877, the pretended officers of the so-called Packard government 

*The language quoted is from the report made by Senator Bayard February 3, 1859, 
in the case of Fitch and Bright of Indiana. (See Bartlett’s Contested Elections 634.) 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


3 


held no official status in said State, and consequently that at that time 
Packard was not the lawful governor, nor was the legislature co-operat¬ 
ing with him in his usurpation the lawful legislature of said State. (See 
State ex rel. Lisso vs. Peek, vol. 30, La. Annual Reports, p. 2S0.) 

3. The evidence taken upon the present reference establishes the fact 
that the sitting member, by himself, and his friends and agents acting 
in his behalf, obtained by bribery and other corrupt means the votes of 
more than five members of the so-called legislature from which he claims 
to derive his pretended title, which number left of those constituting 
the pretended joint convention of the two houses less than a quorum. 

4. From the evidence given upon the present reference, taken in con¬ 
nection with the evidence heretofore submitted to tlie Senate, it appears 
that the so-called legislature, by which William Pitt Kellogg claims to 
have been elected to represent the State of Louisiana in the Senate of 
the United States, was not the lawful legislature of said State, but a 
combination of men united in a conspiracy with the said Kellogg and 
one S. B. Packard and others, organized for the purpose of subverting 
the legally expressed will of the people, to the end that said conspira¬ 
tors might usurp by fraud and perjury and other corrupt and unlawful 
means the places of official trust and political power in said State, and 
that a seat in the United States Senate might be secured to the said 
Kellogg as his distributive share of the plunder; and that in aid of the 
purposes of said conspiracy, said assemblage, so calling itself a legisla¬ 
ture, was, during the brief period of its existence, held together by the 
payment of money to a very large proportion of the men who composed 
it, by persons acting in behalf of said conspiracy and in behalf of said 
Kellogg. 

5. Independent of the petition of the memorialist to^ rehear and re¬ 
view the said case-between him and the sitting member, the State of 
Louisiana, in her capacity as one of the States of the Federal Union, 
appears at the bar of the Senate, respectfully asking that she be al¬ 
lowed her constitutional right to an equal representation in that august 
body with the other States of the Union; and protesting against the 
recognition of said Kellogg as a representative from said State, she 
solemnly avers, in the presence of the Senate and country, that the as¬ 
semblage by which he claims to have been elected was not the legisla¬ 
ture of said State, but an organized conspiracy against its government 
and people, which dispersed, abdicated, and passed away, leaving no 
other of its assumed political acts of any force and effect whatever, save 
and except only the pretended election of said Kellogg. At the same 
time she demands that Henry M. Spofford, who she declares was duly 
elected by the regularly organized and lawful legislature of said State, 
in accordance with all the forms of law, shall be admitted to his seat as 
one of the Senators of the United States. 

RES ADJUDICATA. 

The memorialist is met in the first instance with the technical plea 
of res adjudicata, which seems to be mainly relied upon by the counsel 
of the sitting member to support his case. 

That, where it is applicable in any case before the courts, res adjudi¬ 
cata is a bar as a plea, and conclusive as evidence, will not be denied. 

It is undoubtedly settled law that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, 
upon a question directly involved in one suit, is conclusive as to that question in 
another suit between the'same parties. But to this operation of the judgment it must 
appear, either upon the face of the record or be shown by extrinsic evidence, that the 
precise question was raised and determined in the former suit. (Russell v. Place, 94 
U. S., p. t>08.) 



4 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


This is not “ another suit,” nor is it a proceeding iu the nature of 
“ another suit ” ; on the contrary, as I have shown, it is a proceeding 
directly attacking the order passed in a certain case, and asking that 
the cane itself may be reopened and reviewed, and that the particular 
order in question may be annulled and reversed. This mode of obtain¬ 
ing a revision of the most solemn judgments of the courts is well known 
and uniformly recognized, and commends itself with peculiar force to a 
tribunal whose jurisdiction is at once original and final; for as there 
can be no appeal from such a tribunal to any other authority, to re-ex¬ 
amine its decrees, it is eminently proper and in accordance with recog¬ 
nized legal precedent that it should, upon any reasonable grounds, al¬ 
low an appeal to itselj. 

There are no maxims of the law more firmly established, or of more value in the ad¬ 
ministration of justice, than the two which are designed to prevent repeated litiga¬ 
tion between the same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy ; namely, 
interest rei publicae, ut sit finis litium , and nemo debet bis vexari pro unaeteadam causa. 

If the court has been mistaken in the law, there is a remedy by writ of error. If 
the jury has been mistaken in the facts, the remedy is by niotion for new trial. If there 
has been evidence discovered since the trial, a motion for a new trial will give appro¬ 
priate relief. But all these are parts of the same proceeding, relief is given in the 
same suit, and the party is not vexed by another suit for the same matter. So in a 
suit in chancery, on proper showing a rehearing is granted. If the injury complained 
of is an erroneous decision, an appeal to a higher court gives opportunity to correct the 
error. If new evidence is discovered after the decree has become final, a bill qf review 
on that ground may be filed within the rules prescribed by law on that subject. Here, 
again, these proceedings are all part of the same suit, and the rule framed for the re¬ 
pose of society is not violated. (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S., G5.) 

The doctrine of res adjudicata , as understood by the courts, has there¬ 
fore no application whatever to this proceeding, for the reason that it is 
part of the original case in which the determination now called in ques¬ 
tion was pronounced. 

So much has b£en said in reference to the analogy- between the ac¬ 
tion of the Senate in executing the power conferred on it by the fifth 
section of article 1 of the Constitution and the action of judicial tribu¬ 
nals in determining litigated cases, that it may be useful to consider the 
extent of the power of the latter to reopen and reverse their judgments 
and decrees, and the circumstances under which that power will be ex¬ 
ercised. 

There are two modes of proceeding by which a court re examines its 
decisions, viz: first, upon a bill of review; and, second, upon a motion for 
rehearing. 

Such amotion as that now before the Senate not only corresponds 
in its general character to a motion made before a court exercising juris¬ 
diction in equity to rehear a case which it has once decided, but is 
also analogous, in the rights it gives to the parties and the obligation 
it imposes upon the tribunal, to a bill of review. Such a bill can only be 
brought in England after the decree has been enrolled, and in this 
country not until the decree has become final. 

A bill of review may be brought upon either of two grounds: first, 
for errors in law; second, upon new matter. (Story, Equity Pleadiug, 

§ 404.) 

The new matter justifying such a bill must be evideuce of facts 
which the party could not with reasonable diligence have brought 
forward in the original case, and granting the privilege of bringing 
such a bill upon the second ground above indicated rests in the sound 
discretion of the court . (Story, Equity Pleading, § 417.) 

A bill of review upon newly-discovered matter has been permitted 
even after the affirmance of the decree in Parliament. (Story, Equity 
Pleading, § 418.) 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


5 


By the established rules of the English chancery practice successive 
rehearings might be granted, under certaiu limitations, even at subse¬ 
quent terms of tlie court. (Brown v. Aspden, 14 Howard, p. 27.) 

And the Supreme Court of the United States, in limiting applications 
for rehearing to the term at which the judgment in the case was ren¬ 
dered, declares it to be a departure from the English practice required 
by the character of the court as an appellate tribunal. 

The Chief Justice, in pronouncing the opinion in the case last referred 
to, says: 

A motion has been made for a rehearing in this case, and we have been referred to 
the practice of the English chancery court in support of tbe application. The argu¬ 
ment presupposes that this court, in cases inequity, lias adopted the rules and practice 
of the English chancery. But this is a mistake. The English chancery is a court of 
original jurisdiction, and this court is sitting as an appellate tribunal. It would be im¬ 
possible from the nature and office of the two tribunals to adopt the same rules of 
practice in both. (p. 26.) 

But the Supreme Court will; in its discretion, at any time within the 
term at which the judgment was pronounced, allow a rehearing, and it 
has, on various occasions, reversed its original decision under such cir¬ 
cumstances. In the case of the American Emigrant Company v. The 
County of Adams, the Supreme Court gave judgment affirmiug the de¬ 
cision of the court below on the 16th December. 1878. 

j 

Subsequently a motion for a rehearing was made, aud denied by the 
court. A second motion to rehear was afterwards made, which was 
granted on the 21st April, 1870, and the case was accordingly reargued, 
and at the present term the court pronounced an opinion reversing the 
judgment of the court below, as well as annulling its own previous 
decision. 

Though restricted, as indicated above, in regard to applications for 
rehearing causes once decided by reason of its jusdictiou being appellate, 
the Supreme Court has recognized the English practice, to a certain ex¬ 
tent, in establishing rules for the government of United States courts of 
original jurisdiction. Buie 88 of the Buies of Practice, prescribed for 
the courts of equity, provides as follows: 

No rehearing shall be granted after the term at which the final decree of the court 
shall have been entered and recorded if an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. But if no 
appeal lies, the petition may be admitted at any time before the end of the next term of 
the court, in the discretion of the court. 

It will be perceived that the court, in passing this rule, recognized as 
necessary a broader power, in a tribunal exercising a jurisdiction both 
original aud final, to rehear and review its decrees than was proper to 
be exercised by a court whose decrees could be taken for re-examination 
to a superior tribunal. 

The English court of chancery has granted a rehearing two years 
after passing a final decree in the case ( Cunningham v. Cunningham, 1 
Amh., p. 89). And in another case (Mills v. Banks, 3 ; P.-Williams, p. 2), 
reheard a case eighteen years after the decree was pronounced ; aud in 
Brown v. Aspden (supra), it is stated, in reference to proceedings in 
the House of Lords, that a rehearing in a case brought up by appeal 
from chancery will not be allowed, “ but a reargument will be ordered 
if the house desires it 17 (p. 26). Why and for what purpose? Neces¬ 
sarily, that it may review the ease, and if it thinks proper, reverse the 
judgment it has already pronounced. It is quite immaterial, as affect¬ 
ing the question now under consideration, whether the reargument takes 
place at the suggestion of the house or in response to the application of 
a party j for in either case making the order affirms the existence of 


6 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


jurisdiction to review, and establishes the conclusion that the subject 
has not passed beyond control by recording the judgment. 

If, then, the proposition contended for, that the Senate should, in such 
an inquiry as this, be fettered by the techincal rules adopted for regu¬ 
lating the proceedings of courts, be correct, there is ample author¬ 
ity found in those rules and in the precedents established by judicial 
tribunals to justify the Senate in reopening this case and rescinding the 
resolution heretofore passed. 

The ground upon which the proposition rests is, that the power which 
the Senate exercises, in determining questions affecting contested seats, 
is judicial as contradistinguished from political. This is not correct in 
the sense in which it is used in this case, if, indeed, it be correct in any 
sense. The use of the words in the fifth section of article 1 of the Con¬ 
stitution, that u each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, 
and qualifications of its own members,” does not make the Senate a 
court nor invest each Senator with judicial functions. Neither is it to be 
understood as suggesting that in cases of contested seats the Senate is 
to determine, as between the contestants, a question of the right of pri¬ 
vate property. The power conferred by the Constitution upon the Senate 
in such cases is to ascertain and determine, between the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment and the States, who are the lawfully and constitutionally ap¬ 
pointed representatives of the States to the Senate of the United States, 
and such a power is, in its general character, plainly political; but 
whether it be so or not, certainly some of the questions that may arise, 
and which must be determined in executing the power, are, as will be 
shown hereafter, not only political, but of the greatest possible political 
importance and of the broadest significance. 

But I regard as of very little weight the argument in reply to which 
the foregoing suggestions have been submitted. 

RULE OF DECISION. 

The rule governing the action of the Senate in such cases as this was 
correctly stated by Senator Thurman, as follows: 

The Senate would do manifest injustice were it tastily, and without the most plain 
and most manifest reason, to reverse a decision that had been made seating a Senator 
on this tioor. The case must be extremely strong that would justify such a proceed¬ 
ing. All that I am free to admit, but to say that the technical rule of res adjudicata 
that applies to courts of justice applies in this chamber on a question of this kind is 
to confound all distinctions and to disregard all the laws of this body. (Congressional 
Record of May 7, p. 24.) 

The grounds hereinbefore stated as those upon which this proceeding 
rests meet fully each and all of the conditions demanded by Senator 
Thurman to justify the Senate in rescinding the resolution it adopted 
in this case, and I propose to show that the evidence, and the law ap¬ 
plicable thereto, make it the imperative duty of that body to vacate and 
annul the resolution seating Mr. Kellogg, aud to admit Mr. Spotford as 
the duly elected Senator from Louisiana. 

The rule, as laid down by Senator Thurman, concedes the existence 
of jurisdiction, but limits its exercise to such cases as are exceptional in 
their nature, and where the reversal of a previous decision is required 
by “plain and manifest” reasons. 

Ordinary cases of contested seats arise between parties claiming to 
represent-the same State government, and depend upon questions as to 
the manner in which the election was conducted, the compliance by 
the State legislature with the requirements prescribed by the acts of Con- 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


7 


gress in that regard, the qualifications of the contestants, or other sim¬ 
ilar questions of a more or less formal uature, and having more or less 
personal relation to the individuals presenting credentials. If in any 
case belonging to this class of cases the Senate should come to an 
erroneous conclusion in the first instance, there might be no obligation 
resting upon it to review and correct its decision. 

In such a case, the source of title of each contestant being the same, 
viz, the lawfully constituted and recognized government of the State, 
the judgment rendered by the Senate would be a judgment only upon 
the regularity of the title, and would have no broader or more extended 
effect ox application. 

But in a case where the contestants derive their respective, titles 
from different legislatures, each claiming to be the lawful legislature of 
the State, and where their credentials are- signed by different persons, 
each claiming to be the lawful and duly elected governor of the State, 
a higher and infinitely more important question is then presented, and 
the Senate is called uuon to determine, in the judgment it pronounces, 
which of the two governments thus claiming recognition is entitled to 
be decreed the legitmate and lawful government of the State. 

Such a question, though arising in the case of a contested seat, is one 
of the gravest and most serious that can possibly be submitted to the 
Senate, and demands, for its determination, the highest political power 
of that august body. Under such circumstances, the subject of inquiry 
ceases to be simply a controversy between the contestants as to the 
regularity of their respective titles to a seat, and becomes a question in 
which the controversy between State governments must be settled, and 
the judgment rendered is a judgment deciding which of the two gov¬ 
ernments is to be recognized as in proper constitutional relations with 
the Government of the United States. The Senate can at no time rid 
itself of the obligation to determine correctly such a question whenever 
and however it may come up, and to interpose the plea of res adjudi- 
cata against its right and duty to review a decision once given upon a 
subject of so great importance and to reverse that decision if deemed, 
upon rehearing, to be erroneous, is not only u to confound all distinc¬ 
tions” but to treat with indifference, if not contempt, the most solemn 
trusts reposed in that body by the Federal Constitution.* 

* In tho case of Fitch & Bright, of Indiana (Bartlett’s Contested Election Cases), 
Senator Collamer, of Vermont, and Senator Trumbull, of Illinois, in their min3rity re¬ 
port, made to the Senate February 3, 1859, the following exposition of the right and 
power of the Senate is given : 

“The power of the Senate to judge of the election and qualification of its own 
members is unlimited and abiding. It is not exhausted in any particular case by once 
adjudicating the same, as the power of re-examination and correction of error and 
mistake, incident to all judicial tribunals and proceedings, remaius with the Senate 
in this respect, as well to do justice to itself as to the States represented or to the 
persons claiming or holding seats. Such an abiding power must exist, to purge the 
body from intruders, otherwise any one might retain his seat who had once wrongly 
procured a decision of the Senate in his favor by fraud or falsehood, or even by papers 
forged or fabricated. 

“In what cases and at whose application a rehearing will at all times be granted, 
it is not now necessary to inquire ; but when new parties, with apparently legal claims, 
apply, and especially when a sovereign State, by its legislature, makes respectful ap¬ 
plication to be represented by persons in the Senate legally elected, aud insists that 
the sitting members from that State w-ere never legally chosen, we consider that the 
subject should be fully re-examined, and that neither the State, the legislature, nor 
the persons now claiming seats, can legally or justly be estopped or even prejudiced 
by any former proceedings of the Senate to which they were not parties. 

# * * * * * * 

“In the case of the State of Mississippi, in the House of Representatives in the 
Twenty-fifth Congress, the power to re-examine a decision made on an election of 



8 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Luther v. 
Borden (7 How., 42), says: 

Moreover, the Constitution of the United States, as far as it has provided for an 
emergency of this kind, and authorized the general government to interfere in the 
domestic concerns of a State, has treated the subject as imlitical in its nature, and 
placed the power in the hands of that department. 

The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States 
provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republi¬ 
can form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and on the 
application of the legislature or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be con¬ 
vened), against domestic violence. 

Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what govern¬ 
ment is the established one in a State. For, as the United States guarantee to each 
State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is 
established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And 
when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the 
Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as 
its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority, and 
its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not 
be questioned in a judicial tribunal. It is true that the contest in this case did not 
last long enough to bring the matter to this issue ; and as no senators or representatives 
were elected under the authority of the government of which Mr. Dorr was the head, Con¬ 
gress teas not called upon to decide the controversy. 

It is therefore apparent that the case now before the committee is 
exceptional in its character, and if, in point of fact, the legislature by 
which Mr. Kellogg claims to have been elected was not the lawf ul legis¬ 
lature of Louisiana, and the person from whom he received his creden¬ 
tials was not the lawful governor of that State, then the reasons for re¬ 
versing the decision heretofore pronounced are certainly u most plain and 
most manifest.” 

THE DECISION OF THE STATE CONCLUSIVE. 

In determining which of two contending governments in a State is 
the lawful government and properly entitled to recognition, it will be¬ 
come necessary, if the controversy is still going on, to inquire as to the 
grounds upon which their respective claims are founded. But if the 
State has finally settled the dispute for herself, then Congress or either 
House of Congress will conform its action to the settlement she has 
made. Each State having the right to make its own government,’ sub¬ 
ject only to the restrictions and conditions imposed by the Constitution, 
the national government has no further concern in the matter except to 
recognize as the lawful government of the State that which is accepted 
by the people and which it finds in the undisputed exercise of the func¬ 
tions of government. 

members was fully considered and decided. Gkolson and Claiborne were, at a special 
election held on the proclamation of the governor, clioseu representatives from that 
State to a special session of Congress called by the President. At that session excep¬ 
tion was taken to them, but after some objection they were admitted to their seats. 
Their case and papers were referred to the Committee of Elections, who made report, 
and thereupon, on full and elaborate discussion, it was resolved that they were duly 
elected members of the Twenty-fifth Congress, and entitled to their seats. This was 
in September. In November following, an election was holden in said State, and 
Prentiss and Ward were elected members of the Twenty-fifth Congress, who, in De¬ 
cember following, presented their credentials and claimed their seats. It was then in¬ 
sisted in that case, as it now is in this, that the decision so before made was conclu¬ 
sive of the right of Claiborne and Gholsou to their seats as members of the Twenty- 
fifth Congress, aud the whole matter was res adjudicata. But on a full examination 
and after full discussion, the former resolution declaring Claiborne and Gholsou as duly 
elected members of the Twenty-fifth Congress was rescinded. ,, 






SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. / 9 

Webster, in bis argument in the case of “The Rhode Island Govern¬ 
ment,” says: 

To prove that there was another constitution of two (lays’ duration would be ridic¬ 
ulous. And I say that the decision of Rhode Island herself, bj r her legislature, by her 
executive, by the adjudication of her highest court of law on the trial of Dorr, has 
shut up the whole case. * * * It appears to me that if there were nothing else in 

the case, the proceedings of Rhode Island herself must close everybody’s mouth in the 
court and out of it. Rhode Island is competent to decide the question herself, and 
everybody else ought to be bound by her decision. And she has decided it. (Web¬ 
ster’s Works, vol. 6, p. 239.) 

The rule of decision thus laid down is founded upon a wise and just 
appreciation of the relative and respective lights and duties of the 
States and the Federal Government under the Constitution. 

At a very early period in the history of our country the Supreme 
Court of the United States recognized a similar rule as proper to be ap¬ 
plied whenever it was called upon to construe a statute of any one of 
the States. This rule is very welPand fully expressed in the case of the 
Supervisors v. The United States. (18 Wallace, pp. 81, S2.) 

That the construction of the statutes of a State by its highest courts is to be regarded 
as determining their meaning, and generally as binding upon the Uaited States courts, 
cannot be questioned. It has been asserted by us too often to admit of further debate. 
We have even held that when the construction of a State law has been settled by a 
series of decisions of the highest State court different from that given to the statutes 
by an earlier decision of this court, the construction given by the State courts will be 
adopted by us. And we adopt the construction of a State statute settled by the courts 
of the State, though it may not accord with our opinion. 

It is then submitted that when the State has decided which of 
two contending governments is lawfully entitled to exercise supreme' 
political power under the state constitution, and the people have recog¬ 
nized its authority and submitted to its control, the Houses of Congress 
will accept that decision as conclusive and final. 

We are therefore required to ascertain what the State of Louisiana 
has determined for herself on the subject of the controversy between 
the two organizations that claimed to exercise the powers of govern¬ 
ment under her constitution in January, 1877. 

Their history is too familiar to need recapitulation. 

The assemblage calling itself a legislature, and by which the sitting 
member claims to have been elected, came together in the State-house 
in New Orleans on the 1st day of January, 1877. It appears from the 
testimony taken by this committee that, immediately after convening, 
it barricaded the doors, stationed guards to prevent egress as well as 
ingress, and converted the State-house into a fortress, within which the 
members, with their State and legislative officers, lived and ate aud 
drank and slept. Inside of this fortress these conspirators against the 
people, on the 8th day of January, entertained themselves by the empty 
parade of inaugurating S. B. Packard as governor of the State, and on 
the 10th of the same month they undertook to elect William Pitt Kel¬ 
logg to the Senate of the United States. 

This so-called government never possessed for a single instant of 
time any authority whatever over a particle of the territory of Louisi¬ 
ana beyond the walls of the State-house.* 

At the same time there was in existence another government in Louisi¬ 
ana, exercising supreme political power under the constitution of the State 
throughout its entire limits except over the particular locality which had 
been appropriated by Kellogg, Packard, and their auxiliaries. The legis¬ 
lature of this government was organized on the 1st day of January 1877, 


* See Evidence, pp. 86, 92 93, 94, 115, 202, 207, 866, and 867. 




10 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


with a majority of actually elected members in both the house and 
senate. In the exercise of its constitutional duty, it declared Francis 
T. Nicholls the duly-elected governor of the State, and he was inaugu¬ 
rated. His official character, and the authority of the government of 
which he was the head, were thereafter uninterruptedly recognized and 
• respected by the people, with the exception of the few that had 
gathered in the State-house. The first law promulgated under the 
sanction of the Nicholls government bears date the 8th day of January, 
1877, the day upon which he entered upon the office of chief magistrate 
of the State, and from that time onward the laws enacted by its leg¬ 
islature became part of the body of the statutes of the State, were 
enforced by its executive, and administered by its courts. 

Messrs. Charles B. Lawrence, Jos. R. Hawley, John M. Harlan, John 
C. Brown, and Wayne McVeigh, in their official report to the President 
of the United States, bearing date April 21, 1877, speaking of the con¬ 
dition of things they found in New Orleans on their arrival, say : 

Governor Packard—we shall speak of both gentlemen by the title they claim—was 
at the State-house with his legislature and friends, and an armed police force. As 
there was no quorum in the senate, upon his own theory of the law, his legislature 
was necessarily inactive. * * * Governor Nicholls was occupying Odd Fellows’ Hall 
as a State-house. His legislature met there and was actively engaged in the business 
of legislation. All the departments of the government of the city of New Orleans 
recoguized his authority. The supreme court, nominated by him and confirmed by 
his senate, was holding daily sessions, and had heard about two hundred cases. 

The time for the collection of taxes had not arrived, but a considerable sum of money 
in the form of taxes had been voluntarily paid into his treasury, out of which he was 
defraying the ordinary expenses of a State government. 

The Nicholls legislature had a quorum iu the senate upon either the Nicholls or 
Packard theory of the law ; a quorum in the house on the Nicholls but not on the Pack¬ 
ard theory. The Packard legislature had a quorum in the house on its own theory of 
the law, but, as already stated, not iu the senate, and was thus disabled from any leg¬ 
islation that would be valid, even in the judgment of its own party.* 

These extracts from the report of the distinguished gentleman above 
named need no comment. 

In April, 1877, the Packard government disappeared from the face 
of the earth, leaving in operation no political act done by it whatever, 
save only the fraudulent claim of William Pitt Kellogg to a seat in the 
United States Senate. Packard abdicated, and his legislature dis¬ 
banded. 

Those of that body who had been elected by the people were admitted 
as members of the Nicholls legislature, co operated as such in the ex¬ 
ercise of legislative functions, and participated in the election of Mr. 
Spofford to the Senate. 

Packard was nominated by the President as consul to Liverpool, and 
his nomination was confirmed by the Senate. 

It therefore appears from the evidence now before the committee, that 
a number of those very persons who had constituted the legislative 
body by which the sitting member claims to have been elected, admitted 
that the assemblage they had organized as a legislature was not the 
lawful legislature of the State, and recognized the Nicholls government 
as the only legitimate government of Louisiana. This government then 
had the voluntary allegiance and recognition of all the people of the 
State, and many of those who had combined to resist its authority not 


*Tke Packard theory of the law was, that the returning board made members of 
the legislature ; the Nicholls theory of the law was that they were elected h\j the people* 




SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG, 11 

only abandoned their opposition, bat became officially connected with 
it, and participated in the execution of its political functions.* 

Iu 1878, and consequently since the passage of the resolution seating 
Mr. Kellogg, the supreme court of Louisiana has rendered a decision in 
which it is finally determined that the officers of the Packard govern¬ 
ment had, in January, 1877, no official status, and that no acts performed 
by them at that time, though purporting to be performed virtute officii , 
could have the force and effect of official acts. (State ex rel. Lisso v. 
Peck, 30 La. Annual Repts., p. 280.) 

There can be no reasonable doubt that had the supreme court of the 
State determined this question before the Senate was required to pass 
upon it, the Senate would not have admitted Mr. Kellogg to liis seat. 
The decision above referred to is consequently of great importance, as 
affecting the two questions involved in this inquiry, viz: 1st. Whether 
there is sufficient ground for reopening the case; and 2d. Whether the 
decision heretofore pronounced ought to be reversed. 

Not only has the State of Louisiana, by her executive, her legislature, 
her courts, and her people, decided that the Packard government was 
an irregular organization, without right to exercise any political au¬ 
thority, but the President of the United States and the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives of the United States have decided the same thing. If such 
was not the character of this government, then the President was re¬ 
creant to his duty under the Constitution and laws of the country in not 
responding to the clamorous demand made upon him by Packard and 
his legislature to sustain them and suppress the ‘‘insurrection” flagrant 
in Louisiana against their authority. By the act of Congress of Feb¬ 
ruary 28, 1795, the President under such circumstances is required to 
take prompt action, and according to the ruling in Luther v. Borden, he 
is charged with the duty of determining what body of men constitute 
the legislature of a State and who is the governor. He must, of neces¬ 
sity, determine, as between two contending organizations, which is the 
government and which is arrayed in insurrectionary resistance to lawful 
authority. In this case the President did determine and recognized the 
Nicholls government as the lawful government of the State. 

The House of Representatives has also determined this question in 
favor of the Nicholls government by admitting the members from Lou¬ 
isiana on credentials signed by Nicholls as governor of the Stated 

The Senate itself has determined it in favor of the Nicholls govern¬ 
ment, since the admission of Mr. Kellogg, by accepting and recognizing 
the credentials of Hon. Benj. F. Jonas, signed by Nicholls as governor 
of the State. 

* The following is a list of members of the Packard legislature who, after partici¬ 
pating in the so-called election of Kellogg, went into the Nicholls legislature, as mem¬ 
bers of that body, and participated in the election of Mr. Spofford. (See official journal 
of the house of representatives of La., April 24,1877 ; and journal of Nicholls legislature,. 
Evidence, p. 424.) 

This act was an admission on their part that the Packard legislature was an unlawful as¬ 
semblage, and not the legislature of the State. 

Senators. —Allain, Boatner, Breaux, Bryant, Cage, Demas, Ducros, Dumont, Ellis, 
Gla, Landry, Stamps, Sutton, Twitchell, Wakefield, Young. 

Representatives. —Brown of Caddo, Burton, Brown of Jefferson, Bosley, Brooks, Car- 
ville, Como, Cole, Drury, Davidson, Dayries, Drew, DeLacy, Dickinson, Desmarais, 
D’Arey, Dejoie, Dinkgrave, Detiege, Estopinal, Fobb, Gaude, Gantt, Gary, Gracien, 
Hahn,"Hill of Ascension, Hughes, Holt, Jones, H. M. Johnson, Robt. Johnson, Lewis, 
Leonard of Caddo, Keeting, Magloire, Martin, Milon, McMillan, Ronton, Romero, Raby, 
Souer, Semmes, Snaer, Stewart, Thomas, Tolliver, Washington, Watson, Warmoth r 
Walker. 

tThese members were elected under a law passed by the Nicholls government—sec. 
41, act of 11th April, 1877. 







12 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The decision which the Senate pronounced on this question in the reso¬ 
lution admitting Mr. Kellogg therefore stands alone, and is, of all that 
have been made, the only decision recognizing the Packard government. 

BRIBERY OF MEMBERS AND KELLOGG’S COMPLICITY IN THE CON¬ 
SPIRACY. 

The evidence taken by the committee on the present reference estab¬ 
lishes three material facts not heretofore brought to the attention of the 
Senate: 

1st. That the sitting member and his friends, acting in his behalf and 
at his connivance, obtained, by purchase and other corrupt means, the 
votes of more than five members of the so-called legislature. 

2d. That the members of the Packard legislature were kept together 
by means of money furnished by the sitting member and his friends 
acting in his behalf, and by promises of appointments to office. 

3d. That the sitting member was a party to the frauds by which the 
returning board returned as elected to the legislature certain persons 
who were in fact not elected. 

Vincent Dickerson, of the house of representatives, admitted to Cava- 
nac “that he received money from Kellogg while he was a member of 
the legislature” (p. 926). After this admission he was appointed to an 
office in the custom-house in the spring of 1879. B. Driefus testifies that 
Dickerson received $250 for his vote (p. 668). 

Charles P. Brown, of the house of representatives, admitted to Cava- 
nac “ that he received money for his vote’' (p. 926). He has also been 
appointed to an office in the custom-house. 

A. E. Milon, of the house of representatives, admitted to D. S. Gos- 
ter “that he had received $500” (pp. 894, 895). He also has been ap¬ 
pointed to an office in the custom-house. 

Aristide de Joie, of the house of representatives, was paid for his 
vote for Kellogg, in the presence of A. W. Flannagan (pp. 599, 600 and 
601). He also has been appointed to an office in the custom-house. 

Kichard Simms, of the house of representatives, received $250 for 
his vote (p. 668). 

Jeremiah Blackstone, of the house of representatives, made an affi¬ 
davit that he was paid to vote for KeUlogg (p. 1237). He admitted to 
George W. Waters that he received $300 on account of the election (pp. 
802, 803). He also stated to Cavanac that he had been paid a sum of 
money for his vote; that he knew of six or ten members of the house of 
representatives who had likewise been paid ; that these men had been 
paid by Souer, who was “executive officer of the ring, and as such, had 
negotiated with Kellogg for the votes of the senate, and the money 
had been paid and distributed ; that the members would come in at oue 
door, and be paid, and they were then shown out at another. They 
were required to give their due bills for the money, so that if any trou¬ 
ble came up about it, it was to appear as a loan” (p. 881). 

Milton Jones, of the house of representatives, made an affidavit that 
he was paid to vote for Kellogg (p. 1236). After denying the truth of 
his affidavit on the stand in Washington City, in June last, he admitted 
to Francis Garrett that Kellogg had paid him for doing so, and had also 
promised him a place in the custom-house (pp. 810, 811). He was ap¬ 
pointed to an office in the custom-house immediately upon his return to 
Kew Orleans from Washington (p. 910). 

J. J. Johnson, of the house of representatives, made an affidavit that 
he had been bribed to vote for Kellogg (p. 252). He dictated the affi- 





SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


13 


davit himself (p. 928). He afterwards admitted to Murray that his, 
Johnson’s, testimony before the committee in Washington was false (p. 
851). He also was appointed to an office in the custom-house. 

Percy Baker, of the senate, after the Senatorial election on the 10th 
January, 1879, paid A. W. Oornog a certain sum from a roll of money 
which he exhibited, stating at the time that he had received it for the 
election of Kellogg (pp. 453, 454, 465). 

T. B. Stamps, of the senate, was paid for voting for Kellogg in the 
presence of A. W. Flanagan (pp. 599, 600, 601). 

M. H. Twitched, of the senate, was paid directly by Kellogg himself 
(pp. 663, 664, 666, 668). He admitted to Garrett that his vote had been 
purchased (p. 812). He has been appointed cousul of the United States 
to Kingston, Canada. 

William John He Lacey, of the house of representatives, made an affi¬ 
davit that he was paid for voting for Kellogg (p. 1237). He wrote the 
memoranda from which the affidavit was prepared himself. In his tes¬ 
timony before the committee he denied his signature. It was, however, 
subsequently proved by indisputable evidence. He admitted in his tes¬ 
timony that he was offered $200 by A. G. L. Smith if he would vote for 
Kellogg (pp. 178,179). He stated to Murray that arrangements had been 
made with Kellogg , and that when he was examined as a witness he in¬ 
tended to deny his signature to the affidavit (p. 853). He was appointed 
to an office in the custom-house in May, after making his affidavit. 

Lewis J. Souer, of the house of representatives, was, according to 
Jeremiah Blackstoue, “ the executive officer of the ring.” He was the 
principal witness for the sitting member. According to his own testi¬ 
mony (p. 1116 top. 1137), he distributed money right and left among 
the members, taking their vouchers for their pay as members and promis¬ 
sory notes, but exercising a judicious discrimination in selecting the ob¬ 
jects of his generosity (p. 1123). He says he suffered in this way to the 
extent of about $3,000, never repaid to him, besides distributing consid¬ 
erable sums furnished him by others. The vouchers he took for the pay 
of members were never recognized by the State. He has been appointed 
to an office in the custom-house at a salary of $3,000 per annum. 

Such of these witnesses as were members of the Packard legislature 
may have testified falsely. The memorialist does not vouch for them. 
He was compelled under the circumstances to call to the stand persons 
belonging to their class; for how could you prove the transactions that 
took place in the Den of the Forty Thieves otherwise than by calling the 
members of the gang ? 

One of these witnesses—a preacher by profession—defended lying up¬ 
on both moral and political grounds. He claimed that it “was author¬ 
ized by scripture and the supreme court of Louisiana,” and was “ one 
of the reserved rights of free American citizens' 1 ' 1 (pp. 333, 339). When 
asked whether he was exercising this reserved right now—at the time 
he was testifying—or had exercised it when he gave his affidavit iuKew 
Orleans, he replied: “Well, since I have been in Washington the moral 
atmosphere here has seemed to purify my Louisiana ideas A 

Whether these witnesses told the truth when they made their affida¬ 
vits and when they made admissions to various parties, to the effect 
that they had been induced to vote for Mr. Kellogg for a money consid¬ 
eration, and on the promise of office ; or whether their evidence before 
the committee-to the effect that the statements in those affidavits were 
false, althougnj they made them knowingly and understandingly, and 
appreciated atlthe time thattkey were false, would be a question some- 

Y — 




14 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


what difficult of solution, if their affidavits and admissions stood alone 
on one side against their testimony on the other. 

Unfortunately for the sitting member, certain surrounding circum¬ 
stances exist to qid the solution of this problem which are undisputed. 
It is admitted, or cannot be denied, that the atmosphere of the State- 
house during the Packard rule was laden and rank with rumors and 
talk of money paid members for their votes. 

George Andrew Jackson Sweazie, a faithful adherent of the Kellogg 
interest, a member of the Packard legislature, and an officer in the cus¬ 
tom-house at New Orleans, preceded the Spofford witnesses to Wash¬ 
ington City in June last, and arrived two days before they did. 

Jim Lewis, another faithful adherent of the Kellogg interest, and 
naval officer at New Orleans, came on with these witnesses ; telegraphed 
Kellogg from Lynchburg, on the way, to tell Sweazie to meet him at the 
depot on his arrival (p. 033). 

On the arrival of the party at Washington, they were met by Sweazie 
and quite a number of Mr. Kellogg’s retainers. They stopped at the 
Philadelphia House—all of them being colored men—and Lewis and J. 
J. Johnson occupied the same room and the same bed (p. 610). 

Lewis and Sweazie remained with the witnesses, waited upon them in 
their perambulations about the city, and kept them company during 
their attendance in the committee room. 

This was no doubt only the innocent indulgence of a social taste. It 
is true, J. J. Johnson, when put on the stand the day after his arrival, 
and the morning after he had spent the night with Lewis, testified that 
the affidavit he had given in New Orleans was all false. Put Lewis tes¬ 
tified subsequently that his object in coming to Washington was simply 
to see the Senate and House in session (p. 631). He had been in 
Washington before during the session of Congress, but on this occasion 
he wanted u to see the brigadiers ” (p. 631), and he didn’t come for the 
purpose u of either directly or indirectly assisting Kellogg” (p. 636). It 
is true, he says, that he was at Kellogg’s room, and saw him every day 
(638); but this, it is to be presumed, was likewise only a matter of social 
taste. He also says that when these witnesses, who had been sum¬ 
moned by Mr. Spofford, but who had testified against him, were ready 
to go back to New Orleans, he, Lewis, paid their hotel bills with money 
he obtained from Kellogg far that purpose (pp. 652, 651-5). But this, it 
must be presumed, was done only in obedience to the instinctive gener¬ 
osity of “a man and a brother.” 

There is yet due to Lewis from Kellogg, on this account, the sum of 
$30 (p. 615). 

The circumstances indicated tend very stronglv to confirm the cor- 
rectness of Mr. F. C. Zacharie’s estimate of the class of men to which 
these witnesses belonged, as well as the justice of his appreciation of 
Mr. Kellogg’s methods. Zacharie testifies that he was a member of the 
Nicholl’s legislature, and was appointed a member of the committee to 
investigate the charge against Kellogg of having bribed the members 
of the Packard legislature to vote for him; and when asked why lie had 
not made a report, he replied, u I thought the purpose of the investiga¬ 
tion would be defeated. I said then and believed that Kellogg could 
buy up these witnesses. The venal character of these people was such 
that we could not rely upon them. They were that kind of cattle that 
if their affidavits were made public we felt assured the sitting member 
would buy them up ” (p. 991). 

There is another great and important fact in this connection that 


SPOFFORD VS . 1 KELLOGG. 15 

must impress itself most deeply and most painfully upon the mind of 
every Senator who will consider it, even for a single moment. 

Mr. Kellogg claims to have received the votes of S3 members and 
senators, being five more than a quorum and the entire number of those 
present at the joint convention of the two houses which convened March 
10, 1877. 

Of these eighty-three senators and members, thirty four are now in the 
New Orleans custom house. One of the eighty-three is now United States 
consul at Kingston, Canada, and auother is postmaster at New Orleans; 
whilst A. S. Badger, who was sergeant at arms of the senate, is now 
collector of customs at New Orleans; William L. Randall, who was 
minute clerk of the house, is now in the Treasury Department, and Con¬ 
quest Clarke, who was Mr. Kellogg’s private secretary, has also been 
appointed to an office in that department. 

It is a singular and interesting coincidence that nearly all of the ap¬ 
pointments in the custom house, above referred to, were made after the 
ls£ day of January, 1879, and a large number of them during the spring of 
that year , subsequent to the time when these proceedings had been instituted , 
and some of them either immediately before or directly after the appointee 
teas called as a witness in this case. 

Kellogg spies thronged New Orleans and besieged Cavailac’s office, 
and very shortly after it became known that any ex-member of the 
Packard legislature had made an affidavit, disclosing the u secrets of his 
legislative prison house,” he was accommodated with an office under the 
collector of customs. 

Peter Williams, who was appointed to a position in the custom-house 
in 1877, testifies that he wrote a.letter * to Secretary Sherman “protest¬ 
ing against the custom-house being made a refuge for perjurers and thieves ” 
(p. 534). 

Why were these appointments made'? Have we fallen upon a time 
when in the development of the practice and theory of “ civil service re¬ 
form,” a genius for “ stealing and lying” is regarded as a recommenda¬ 
tion for office ? 

The pretense that Mr. Kellogg had nothing to do with these appoint¬ 
ments is, in view of the evidence, simply ridiculous. He has become 
the beneficiary of the perjuries the incumbents have committed, and 
this of itself should be sufficient to eud all inquiry as to his connection 
with the matter. 

A. S. Badger, one of Mr. Kellogg’s most ardent supporters in this con¬ 
test, has been in confidential communication with him all through its 
progress. This is attested by the numerous cipher telegrams passing 
between them relating to this proceeding, and in reference to the wit¬ 
nesses and their evidence (pp. 1007, 1008, 1228-1235). 

Mr. Kellogg has omitted to furnish the committee the key to this 
cipher, or to explain the meaning of these telegrams. He, very natu¬ 
rally, wishes, no doubt, that the secrets between himself and his con¬ 
fidential friend, which are thus hidden by the veil he has thrown over 
them, should remain forever undisclosed.t 


* The date of this communication is fixed as of the date of his interview with N. B. 
Hutton, which took place some time last summer (p.522). N. B. Hutton was appointed 
in the custom-house while the committee were in session in New Orleans, and testified 
accordingly (pp. 772,773). 

tl have not had an opportunity to examine the dispatches with sufficiently close 
scrutiny to make them out, but by the aid of the very partial and carefully limited ex¬ 
planation given by Conquest Clark on his cross-examination (pp. 789, 790), and by 
comparing one dispatch with another, some of the words can be deciphered ; for in- 




16 


SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


The conclusion is inevitable, that whether the appointments were 
made, on the request of Mr. Kellogg or not, they were made in his in¬ 
terest and for his benefit, and to silence and suppress the truth. 

H. T. Brown testifies that Morris Marks, who was in the New Orleans 
custom-house and apparently largely engaged in distributing patronage 
under the collector’s direction, made to him some time after March, 1879, 
the following statement: “I cannot take care of any of my friends now 
while this fight is going on about Kellogg. I have to appoint a set of 

- curs and hounds to keep them from squealing on Kellogg ” 

(p. 827). 

The evidence of this witness was given in Kew Orleans while the com¬ 
mittee was in session in that city, and it is important to notice the fact 
that Morris Marks was not called by the sitting member to contradict 
or explain it. 

That the members of the Packard legislature were kept together by 
money paid to them in the interest of Mr. Kellogg and by promises of 
official patronage sufficiently appears from what has already been said, 
and is placed beyond question by the testimony of Lewis J. Souer, the 
principal witness for the sitting member (pp. 1116, 1137), and also by the 
testimony of Thomas Murray (pp. 85, 113.) 

The fact that there was not a quorum of elected members in either house 
of this legislature appears from the agreed statement of the parties sub¬ 
mitted to the committee, at its request, during the first investigation of 
this case. (See appendix A, pp. 59, 60, 71, 72, 108.) 

Por a full discussion of this subject and the manner in which the legis¬ 
lature was organized (see appendix A, pp. 12-11).* * 


stance, Jefferson signifies summons ; Vermont, witness ; Adams, the chairman of the com¬ 
mittee ; Terrier, Kellogg ; Grapes, members of the Packard legislature. To quote one 
of these dispatches by way of verification : 


“ Washington, D. C., May 5—12.30 p. m. 

“ Gen’l A. S. Badger : 

“Resolution take testimony passed. Every Republican paired or voting against. 
Terrier made speech. Delighted all friends. Will send. Tell Violet. 

“A.” 


The date of the telegram coincides with the date of the passage of the resolution and 
with Mr. Kellogg’s speech. Mr. Kellogg, in addition to the title of Terrier, also bears 
in these telegrams the less aggressive and more kindly “ alias” of Amity. It is prob¬ 
able that the modest title of Violet designates Mr. Lewis J. Souer. 

* As an illustration of the manner in which the Packard legislature conducted busi¬ 
ness and obtained members for the purpose of making an apparent quorum, the follow¬ 
ing statement of Mr. Steven will be interesting. This statement is in evidence under 
an agreement between counsel that it maybe read and treated as though Steven’s had 
testified to what is therein set forth before the committee. 

During the time that Steven was held in custody, the senate admitted on a pre¬ 
tended contest two seuators, Baker and Kelso, while the senators representing the 
senatorial districts these pretended contestants claimed to represent, viz, Lewis Tena- 
da and H. C. Mitchell, were not only actually elected by the returns but were admitted 
by the returning board to have been elected and were in their seats in the Nicholls senate. 
(See official journal of the senate, p. 4.) At the time of the admission of Kelso and 
Baker there was no quorum in the Packard senate, and when the vote was taken 
Steven is entered upon the journal as voting blank. (Evidence, pp. 355, 356.) The jour¬ 
nal was therefore falsified iu order to make an apparent quorum. 


“ STATEMENT OF WILL STEVEN RELATIVE TO HIS CAPTURE. 


“ On January 1st, 1877, I was one of the holding-over senators who formed the senate 
of the State of Louisiana, convened on that day in Saint Patrick’s Hall in the city of 
New Orleans. 

“ I was one of a committee of three appointed by the chair to inform Governor Kel¬ 
logg that the senate was duly organized, and ready to receive any communication he 
might have to make, &c., &c. The other members of the committee were Mr. Garland 









SPOFFOKD VS. KELLOGG 


17 


That the sitting member participated in the frauds of the returning- 
board, to which the Packard legislature was indebted for a large num¬ 
ber of its members, is conclusively established by the testimony of J. 
F. Kelley, the supervisor of Richland Parish. This testimony was taken 
by the Potter committee, and is reported in vol. 3, p. 171-182. It was 
offered in evidence in this case, and the witness was not called because 
of the understanding that his testimony as reported in the volume above 
referred to should be considered as in this case. (Pp. 782, 783.) 

From this evidence it appears that after Kelley had made the consoli¬ 
dated statement of the returns, which he was required by law to make, 
as supervisor of Richlaud Parish, Mr. Kellogg sent for him and in¬ 
sisted on his protesting that the election in that parish had not been a 
free and fair election; that Mr. Kellogg drew up a form of protest and 
affidavit, which he gave to D. M. J. Jewett to hand to Kelley; that Kelley 
refused to make such a x>rotest or such an affidavit, because the state¬ 
ments therein contained were not true; that Mr. Kellogg pursued him 
and importuned him, insisting that he should make the protest, and 
stating to him at one time as a reason for his signing the paper that if 
he did not u that parish would carry the election out and out .” (Potter 
committee, vol. 3, pp. 171-175 and 182.) 

No one acquainted with the position of the sitting member in Louisi¬ 
ana, his associations in that State, and his political career and methods 
can be so entirely innocent as to believe that he was not engaged in 
devising and promoting the projects and machinations of the returuing- 
board. 

Henry Houser testifies that Jewett and Blanchard brought the returns 
to his (Kellogg’s) house night after uight, and devoted night after night 
to their manipulation. (Pp. 504, 5, 6, and 9.) 

Mr. Kellogg was, according to all the evidence, the ruling spirit in the 
organization of the legislature and in the general direction of its proceed¬ 
ings up to the time he left for Washington. 

Murray says that when the members first came to the State-house 
“ they would go to Kellogg for money f who repeatedly sent for him to take 
them to Souer’s room, (p. 92). 

The relation between Kellogg and Souer, as principal and agent, is 
too clearly established to be controverted. 

It is important also to notice that Murray says that after taking the 
men to Souer’s room, he saw them have considerable sums of money 
when they came out, and that many of them admitted that they had 
received it in consideration of voting for Kellogg (92, 115). 

The analytical index (Appendix B) will, however, show the testimony 
on this point, as well as others, and renders further discussion of it in 
this brief unnecessary. 

of Saint Landry, and Mr. Boatuer of Catahoula, both of whom were elected in 1876. 
The committee proceeded to the Saint Louis Hotel, were admitted to Governor Kel¬ 
logg’s office, and delivered to him in person the message with which they were charged. 
Upon leaving Governor Kellogg’s office I was stopped by two or three persons, who 
stated that they were sergeants-at-arms of the senate, and that I must accompany them 
to the senate chamber. I stated that the senate of the State had met in Saint Pat¬ 
rick’s Hall on that day and had adjourned until the following day; therefore I refused 
to accompany them, and refused to submit to arrest. 

“1 was thereupon seized by two or more of these parties and pushed and dragged in 
the direction of the senate chamber, I resisting at every step. In this manner we 
reached the outside bar of the senate, where, by getting my feet against the railing, I 
was enabled for a few moments to make a more effectual resistance. I was finally 
forced to the bar of the senate. I addressed myself to the president (Lieutenants 
Governor Antoine,) who was in the chair, stating the circumstances which led to my 
arrest, protesting against the arrest, and demanding that I be permitted to withdraw. 

2 MER 



18 


SPOFFORD YS. KELLOGG. 


Should the Senate, upon any of the grounds stated, deem it just and 
right to reopen the case, then the entire matter is before that body, to 
be determined according to the law and the facts. If the resolution 
seating Mr. Kellogg should be annulled on the one ground only that 
the sitting member obtained his seat by bribery, then, the judgment 
being vacafed, the question as to which of the two legislatures of Lou¬ 
isiana was the lawful legislature of the State arises as an original ques¬ 
tion unvexed by any previous decision. 

Under such circumstances, therefore, every Senator will vote upon 
that question according to the dictates of his conscience and his judg¬ 
ment, without being fettered by any actiou the Senate may previously 
have taken in regard to it. 

It seems unnecessary to argue the question of Mr. Spofford’s right to 
his seat—it is conceded on all hands that if Mr. Kellogg is not entitled 
to represent the State of Louisiana in the Senate, Mr. Spofford is.* 

The State bv solemn resolution which has been laid before the 

XJ 

Senate and referred to the committee, protesting against the wrong and 
injustice of being denied her equal rights with the other States, demands 
that such wrong and injustice should be repaired by the admission 
of Mr. Spotford as her duly elected representative in the Senate of the 
United States. 

All attempts to damage his character in this proceeding have so sig¬ 
nally failed that they are not worthy a moments consideration. They 
have been harmless for mischief to him, whilst some of them have re¬ 
coiled with violent effect upon the sitting member by whom they had 
been devised. 

Charles Cavanac, the attorney and active friend of Mr. Spofford comes 
from the ordeal of examination and cross-examination unharmed and 
unstained. No one has impeached him, no one has assailed him, and 
his statements have been confirmed by the witnesses on both sides. The 
office of finding proof of the facts that were known to exist was 
committed to him, and the proof is uniform from all the witnesses who 
testified on the subject on either side that he never held out or offered 
any inducement of any kind whatever to any one to become a witness 
or to make a statement; but on the contrary uniformly stated to all 
who came to him in reference to the controversy that there was nothing 
to be made out of it in the way of money or office, and that all that he 
wanted was the simple , naked, and unbought truth. (Pp. 208, 209, 918, 
926, 951, 288, 304.) 

It has been insisted that to open this case on any ground whatever 
would be establishing a dangerous precedent, which might have the 


The president stated that I could only be permitted to withdraw by unanimous con¬ 
sent of the senate, which was refused. At this juncture Governor Kellogg came in 
through a door immediately in the rear of the president’s desk. I appealed to him as 
commander-in-chief of the forces occupying the building to release me, as I considered 
my arrest as equivalent to a violatian of a flag of truce. 

“ He stated he was very sorry, &c., but as the senate had me in custody he could not 
interfere. I then made an attempt to go out, but was seized by several persons and 
forced back. I took a chair and sat down with my back to the president, at the end 
of the center aisle. The roll was then called, my name repeated probably a dozen or 
more times; I made no response nor gave recognition in any way, shape, or manner 
whatever. When the roll was called on the seating of Baker and Kelso I made no 
answer, nor gave sign or motion of any kind whatever. 

WILL STEVEN. 

In the original case the Committee on Privileges and Elections reported two resolu¬ 
tions, one to the effect that Mr. Kellogg was entitled to the seat, and the other to the 
effect that Mr. Spofford was not entitled to the seat . The first' resolution passed the 
Senate, but the second did not, and was never acted on. 














SPOFFORD VS. KELLOGG. 


19 


effect of destroying tbe stability of the most solemn decrees of the 
Senate, and rendering them liable to be changed from time to time ac¬ 
cording to the fluctuations of party majorities. 

All tribunals, whatever may be their character, which are composed 
of men prominent in the politics of a country are invariably controlled 
to a great extent by political prejudices and sympathies whenever called 
upon to decide any question that is of a political nature. There is no 
truth attested by history and experience that is more emphatically es¬ 
tablished than this. The trial of the case of Queen Caroline by the House 
of Peers of England, and the Electoral Commission of the United States, 
are two conspicuous illustrations that no solemnity of obligation and no 
supreme importance of duty can protect the reason and judgment of 
men from the influences of party creeds, prejudices, and associations. 
But there is also another great truth well attested by history and ex¬ 
perience, which is this : that those tribunals are most likely to be swayed 
by such influences as those referred to whose decisions are final and 
conclusive, and whose members act in the belief that any decrees or judgments 
they may render, no matter how erroneous , are beyond review and re-ex¬ 
amination. 

Every decision of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial func¬ 
tions should be founded upon truth, justice, and law; and if it is appreci¬ 
ated by those who are to decide that at some future day the judgment 
rendered by them may be re-examined by an opposing political party and 
reversed if not right, a wholesome apprehension will naturally lead to 
careful investigation, materially assist in subjecting passion to the con¬ 
trol of reason, and prevent that inconsiderate haste which is always pro¬ 
ductive of mischief. 

Respectfully submitted. 

R. T. MERRICK, 

Of Counsel for the Memorialist. 














/ 






I 



















APPENDIX B TO MR. MERRICK’S BRIEF. 


[S. "W., Spofloril witness; K. AM., Kellogg witness.] 


A. 


Affidavits, Jos. J. Johnson, 252,928 : 

Jos. J. Johnson, read before sworn to, 58-9. 

De Lacy, 174,178,191,196,209,210,923,655,666,667,936,987,1237. 

Jones dictates his own, read and sworn to, 923. 

It. J. Brooks, identified by Cavanac, 925. 

Jules Seveignes, 253, 227-229, 237, 246,234-236. 

A. E. Milon’s, bribery, 684-686. 

Blackstone’s, bribery, 687, 688, 691-693, 834, 891. (See affidavit, 1237.) 

Jones’s affidavit “ made under fear,” 907, 986, 987. 

Antz, George J., 667 (S. W.): 

Bribery, a general rumor, 668. 

Packard legislator Green in custom-house, 667. 

Abell, C. S., 739-744 (K. W.): 

In custom-house, 740. 

Explains operations of returning-board, 740, 741. 

Anderson, T. C., 779-782 (K. W.): 

Gave B. Wallims letter of introduction to Kellogg, May 30, 1879, 780. 

Denies telling Kellogg in Houser’s presence State had gone Democratic — 111 studi¬ 
ously avoided that subject,” 781. 


B. 


Buisson, T. J.(S. W.): 

Witness, 983-987. 

Bribery: 

Proof of Nicholls legislature offer to pay expensi of collecting ; nothing to be paid 
witnesses, 1107. 

Souer admits advancing money to Milton Jones, 1136. 

Souer gives money to legislators for Kellogg, 58, 87, 123, 143,156,157, 894,895. 
Souer admits advancing money to keep members in Packard house, 1123, 1124. 
Current rumor, 92-94, 120, 161, 192, 291, 661, 662, 668, 747, 809, 810, 950, 976. 
Pinchback charges, 161,192. 

J. J. Johnson made affidavit that he had never bribed, 252. Diet ate 1 affidavit 
himself, 928. 

Brown admits bribery, 926. 

Smith bribes De Lacy for Kellogg, 146-148,174, 179,181, 182. 

Milon admits, 894, 895. 

Dickerson and Brown admit, 926. 

How conducted in legislature, 881. 

Senator Baker admits, 453, 454, 465. 

Legislative combination to secure, 881. 

Stamps and De Joie paid to vote for Kellogg, 599-601. 

Stamps denies being paid to vote for Kellogg, 1079,1083. 

Kellogg pays Spofford’s witnesses’ board-bills in Washington after they deny their 
affidavits, 652,654, 655. 

Twitchell bribed by Kellogg, 663-666. 

Dickerson and Simmes admit, 668, 669, 926. 

Blackstone makes affidavit to and admits, 802, 803, 881, and snys lie knows six or 
ten members of the house who were paid, 881. 

Kellogg and Souer give Franklin a bribery fund, 688, 689. 

Packard legislators paid to stay, 747; current rumor, 747. 

Of colored members, notorious, 799. 

Jones admits, 810, 811 ,* denies, 906. 

Twitchell admits, 812. 

Badger, A. S.: 

Ex-legislator, now collector of customs, 120. 

See cipher telegrams between Badger and Kellogg, 1007, 1008, 1225,1228. 


INDEX. 


9 W ) 


Brown, Charles F., 296-316: 

Admits to Cavanac that he was bribed to vote for Kellogg, 926. 

Gets in custom-house and says has concluded uot to testify, 926. 

No quorum January 9, 1877, 297. 

Went to Nicholls’s house after being bartered by McVeigh, the President, and other 
political frauds, 297-299, 307. 

Don’t tell lies as a general thing , 305, 306. 

Tells Cassidy hotel story, 298-307. 

Brooks, Richard J., 283-296, 496 : 

Seveignes said not present at vote, 238. 

Cavanac tells to be honest once without pay, 288. 

Denies telling Cavanac paid for Kellogg’s vote, 288. 

Cavanac identifies affidavit, 925. 

Breaux: 

Vote recorded for Kellogg, 384 ; vide 809. 

Promised $80 0 by Kellogg for his vote, 862. 

Kellogg afraid of, tells Marks to give custom-house place, 8 52. 

Kellogg wants to testify, “ can’t stultify” himself, 865. 

Baker, Percy: 

Packard senator, admits bribery, 453, 454, 465, 862 
Blackstone, Jere. 695-710 (K. W.): 

Contradicted bv Ewart. 892. 

Not elected, 524, 534, 529,541,542, 545,554,547, 548. 

Admits bribery and states what others got, 8cl. 

Affidavit, 687, 688, 691-693, 891. 

Bribes, Hughes and Bird, 688,689. 

Admits that he got $500 from Kellogg, 695. 

Denies Kellogg not fairly elected ; made $300 out of it, 802-804. 

Signed affidavit as a witness, don’t remember swearing to it, 702,703. 

Signed affidavit as a witness, Boatner contradicts, 882. 

Describes legislative ring to procure bribes; sells out to Kellogg, 881. 

Burke, E. A., 540-556,1,000 (S. W.): 

Fraudulent registration in seventh ward, 541, 546. 

Democratic voters stricken off, 542, 545,554,561. 

Poll 3, seventh ward, not counted, 547 549. 

“ Repeating” unlimited, 549,550. 

Sewing-machine dodge, 552. 

25,300 names, fraudulent registrations, 555. 

Bloomfield, Benj., auditor C. H., 593, 594, 660 : 

Furnishes roll of custom-house employees, 593, 594, 660. 

Beaugnon, Louis F., 661-667: 

Assistant Packard, sergeant-at-arms, 661. 

General rumor of universal bribery, 661, 662. 

All had money apparently from election, 661, 662. 

Sees Twitchell bribed by Kellogg in person, 663, 664,666. 

Bird, George, 783,784 (K. W.): 

Received nothing for voting for Kellogg, 784. 

State commissioner returned Democratic candidate 480 majority. Returning-board 
returned witness 480 odd, 784. 

Brown, H. T., 827, 828 (S. W.) : 

M. Marks says, has to appoint set of “damned curs and bounds to keep them from 
squealing on Kellogg,” 827. 

(N. B. Marks not called to contradict.) 

Boatner, Chas. J,. 880-884 (S. W.) : 

Chairman National Committee to investigate Kellogg’s election. Why committee 
didn’t report, 991. 

Blackstone admits and describes bribery in Packard legislature, 381. 

Blackstone admits being bribed by Souer, 881. 

Blackstone did not sign affidavit as a witness, 832. 

Buisson, D. J., 985-987 (S. W.): 

Identifies Jones’s affidavit; Jones said contents true—signed and swore to it vol¬ 
untarily, 936. 

Same as to De Lacy’s affidavit, 936. 

C. 

Caucus: 

Addressed by Kellogg, 51,52. 

Not addressed by Kellogg, 149. 

Simms don’t remember speech, 313. (See 327.) 


INDEX. 


23 


What, Kellogg tells it, 811. 

Held from December 26 to June 10, 1123. 

Legislators demanded money in, 1124. 

Conspiracy, Kellogg’s, 87: 

Kellogg makes Kelly file illegal protest as to Richland Parish, 782,783. (See Vol. 
3, Potter Committee, p. 173.) 

Kellogg manipulates returns with Blanchard and Jewett, 505,503,509,510,513. 
(For occupation of Blanchard and Jewett, see Potter Committee, vol. 1, p. 1440, 
1449.) ’ L 

Custom-house: 

Who in, 94,102, 95,100,101,120,199, 234,235,240,288,289, 294, 295, 301, 313, 314,478, 
491, 492, 493, 520,525,593,594,660,647-650,667,685,774,889. 

When put in, 100,101,120, 199,234,235,240,288,289,204,295, 301, 313, 314, 478, 491- 
493, 520,525, 593, 594, 660, 647-650, 667, 685,774,889. 

Williams writes Sherman protesting against making a refuge for perjurers and 
thieves, 534, and see 827. 

Employees 300 in number, 682, 683. 

Spofford’s Washington witnesses get in custom-house, 708. 

Combination in legislature: 

Object of, 123,188, 686. 

Whole administration for Kellogg, 148. 

Designed to control legislature until paid for, 881. 

Souer executive officer of, negotiates with Kellogg, money paid and distributed, 881. 
Cavanac, Charles, 208, 213, 923-927 (S. W.): 

States circumstances of De Lacy’s affidavit, 208-210. 

Told affiants wanted the truth only and pay nothing, 20 3,209, 923, 951. 

Contradicts Ward, 989. 

Tells Brooks to be honest for once without pay, 288, 304. 

Watson says acted in good faith, 336. 

Promised protection but no pay, 918. 

Jones dictated affidavit, heard it read, correct, swore to it, 923. 

Jones disgusted with witness going back on affidavits, money, and pressure too 
great—would have to go back on his own though true, 923. 

De Lacy said his affidavit true 15 minutes before denying signature, 923. 

Identifies R. J. Brook’s affidavit, 925. 

J. J. Johnson’s affidavit dictated by himself, read over to him and by him, said 
all right, 928. 

Phillips says never saw do a disreputable thing—saw him asked for money 
and refused, and heard tell witnesses not to swear to their affidavits if not true, 
951. 

Contradicts Elder, 1208,1209. 

Contradicts Herbert, 1208,1209. 

Cornog, A. W., 453-469 (S. W.): 

Senator Percy admits being bribed ; shows witness money, 453, 454, 465. 
Reputation good, 645. 

Clover, F. A., 469-483 (K. W.): 

Supervisor at Baton Rouge now in custom-house, 478. 

Made intimidation affidavits, 472, 474, 475. 

Had U. S. officer at polls, 474. 

Made protest at New Orleans after time prescribed by law, 474-478. 

Don’t remember swearing differently before Morrison committee, 481-483. 

Clarke, Conquest, 786-790, 962 (K. W.) : 

Got memorandum from Kellogg about Washington witnesses, 783. 

Appointed in Treasury through Kellogg’s influence, 788. 

Kellogg’s cipher telegrams, 790,1228-1238. 

Carville, J. M., 865-868, ex-Packard member (K. W.): 

Thomas, of Bossier, and Jones both present at ballot, 865. 

“ Critical condition ”—quorum—members not allowed to go out, 866, 867. 
Custom-house, emplovees $3 per day, 889. 

Clark, T. M. G., 868-871 (K. W.): 

Worked for Kellogg—would swear to a lie under suitable circumstances, 870, 871. 
Cipher telegrams, 1228-1238, 790. 


D. 


De Lacy, W. J., custom-house : 

Witness, 144, 208,214, 218. 

Affidavit, 253,174. 

Affidavit, tells Murray will stand by, 100,121,212. 


24 


INDEX. 


Affidavit, tells Cavauac will stand by, 191. 

Dictates, signs, and swears to affidavit, 212,209,210. 

Denies affidavit, 145,175-176,179. See pages 986, 987. 

G. L. Smith asks, to stand by Kellogg, 146,147,148,174,179,181, 182. 

Gets money from G. L. Smith, 174. 

Asked Kellogg for money ; got $50 from Lane, 148. 

How he signs his name, 159,167,214-217. 

Kellogg did not address caucus, 149. 

Plans with Murray to fight Kellogg, 178. 

Voted for Spotford, $500 part consideration, 151-153,196, 155. 

Voted for Spotford, $500 entire consideration, 151-153,196. 

Went to Nicholls’s legislature, got no mouey,187, 188,196-198. 

Never heard of bribery till Spotford case came up, 161. 

Was ottered money to vote for Kellogg, 178. 

Tells Cassidy hotel story, 167,168,193. 

At Kellogg’s room in Washington, 172. 

Affidavit true, 178; false, 191; true, 196,923. 

Tells Cavanac got $250 for Kellogg vote, 208, 209. 

Affidavit copied from his own memorandum book; compares and says all right; 
signs and swears to, 655-657. 

Evades denying falsity of his Washington testimony, 658. 

Tells Murray arrangements made with Kellogg, and is going back on affidavit; 

offers to arrange for Murray, 853. 

In court-house. 

Dickerson, V., of Saint James, 744-749: 

Admits bribe; voted for Kellogg,926,768,769, 926. 

Don’t know Driefus, but used to go to Colgraves, and voted with Simms, 744,745. 
Colored members divided about Senator until few days before election, 745. 
Kellogg, only nomination in caucus, 747. 

Current rumor—Packard members paid to stay, 747. 

Poor at beginning of session; new suit after Kellogg’s election; bill with $250 
marked in red ink, 844. 

Dumont, A. J. (Iv. W.) Packard senator, 488; now in custom-house, 491, 488-494 : 

Came to Washington to help Kellogg’s case, 491. 

Ex-Packard members in custom-house—“All we have left now,” 492,493. 

Deslonde, P. G., secretary of state, now in post-office, 516, 518 : 

Admits no quorum, 516-518, 594-596. 

Knows more than dares to tell, 519. 

De Joie, Aristide, 777-779 (Iv. W.): 

Flannagan sees paid to vote for Kellogg, 599, 601. 

Denies being out of State-house in January, 778. 

Denies being in Dibble’s office, 778. 

Dreifus, B., 668,669 (S. W.) : 

Dickerson, and Si mines, ex-Packard members, admit being bribed. Witness sees 
• one of the bills marked $250 in red ink, 668, 669. 

Derocha, Alex., 792, 793 (K. W.): 

Bad -reputation, 793. 

Drury, George, 799 (K. W.): 

Colored members bought for Kellogg, notorious rumor, 799. 

Daliet, Octave, 804-809 (S. W.): 

Heard Moore admit having fraudulent registration papers for use, 805. 

Saw Democrats erased at court-house, protested against it, 806. 

Duffy, Peter J., 1201, 1202: % 

Keeps American House; Barney Williams registered there as M. Davis, 1201. 

E. 


Election frauds, 617, 618: 

Eepeating, 549, 550. 

Sewing-machine dodge, 552. 

Poll 3 ward 7 not counted, 546-549, 837. 

Names erased at court-house, 806, 879, 991-993. 

Manufactured affidavits to support protests, 822, 823. 

Democratic candidates elected, but counted out in seventh ward, 991-993. 

Ewart, E. J., 890-894 (S. W.): 

Describes making Blackstone’s affidavit, 891. 

Elder, John W., 1150-1186 (K. W.): 

Claims to have been employed by Spotford to get testimony against Kellogg, 1150. 
Disproved by letter to Morse, 1160. 






INDEX. 


25 


Cannot remember whether the witnesses for Spofford were to be paid anythin^-. 
1161, 1162. 1 * 

Cannot recollect whether witness had a cipher telegram, 1162. 

Thinks Kellogg ‘‘scooped in” Spofford’s witnesses, 1162. 

Never got any money from the Spofford crowd, but thinks he will from the other 
crowd if he renders service, 1163, 1164. 

Took affidavits of Gary, Kelso, and Seveignes, Brooks, Lane, and Corno^ for Soof- 

^ ford, 1164, 1165. 

Subpenaed by Kellogg, discharged and finally put on by Kellogg without sub- 
pena, 1164. 

Was Spofford attorney and detective ? 1162, 1169. 

Complains that Cavanac has reported to Spofford that he (Elder) is offering money 
to witnesses. (See letters from Elder, 1171, 1172.) 

Admits lying, 1172. 

Telegraphs Morse that witness has proof of $2,000 paid direct to senators and 
members, 1177. 

Telegraphs Morse has not violated agreement to offer no pecuniary inducement 
to witnesses and will not, 1179. 

Senator Hoar thinks witness an impossible source of affirmative and reliable testi¬ 
mony, 1185. 

Contradicted by Cavanac, 1208. 

Elder not authorized by Spofford, 1214. 

(See Morse testimony contradicting witness and explaining employment.) 

F. 


Flowers, E. II., 980-985 (K. W.): 

Says brought Murray to Cavanac. 

Cavanac contradicts, 990. 

Disreputable character, came to Cavanac voluntarily, brought no one else, 990. 
Cavanac tells that he wants true testimony and no pay, 990. 

Got Murray for Spofford, April 28, 983. 

Murray contradicts, 995. 

Working for Kellogg to get back home—ostracized for being a Democrat, 984. 
Thought Spofford’s witnesses were going back on affidavit in Washington, 985. 
Flannagan, A. W., 599-611 (S. W.) : 

Sees Harris pay money in Dibbell’s office to De Joie and Stamps ; voting for Kellogg, 
599, 601. 

Flannagan, Thos. K., 679, 682, 813 (S. VV.): 

Clerk returning board. 

State went 8,000 to 9,000 Democratic by the returns, 813. 

W. J. Moore, ex-Packard member, said, “ Kjellogg about as much Senator as I am,” 
680. 

Fitzpatrick, John, 655-660, 816 (Iv. W.): 

Copied De Lacy’s affidavit and compared with Do Lacy ; says all right—signs and 
swears to it, 655 -6-7. 

De Lacy evades denying that his Washington testimony is false, 656. 

G. 


Grant, U. S.: 

Instructs Augur; Packard, if any one, 258,259. 

Guichard, Robt. F., 345-352, 447, 448, clerk Packard House (Iv. W.): 

Corroborates Murray as to quorum, 351. 

Answers roll-call for members, 521. t 

Garic, Louis F., 515-519 (S. W.): 

Deslonde, secretary of state, says no quorum, 516-518. 

Desloude knows more than lie dares tell, 519. 

Garrett, Francis, 809-813, 898-905 (S. W.): 

Assistant Packard sergeant-at-arms. 

No quorum at one time, don’t know there ever was, 809. 

Breaux not in senate—admits it, 809. 

Mautz not there—admits it, 809. 

Prevailing rumor of bribery, for Kellogg, 809. 

Witness’s interview between Jones and Kellogg ; Jones admits bribe, 810, 811. 
Jones admits bribe in Washington, for going back on affidavit, 810, 811. 

Kellogg tells Jones can’t be arrested for going back on affidavit, 810, 811. 

Kellogg tells caucus will turn over government to Democrats, if not elected sen¬ 
ator, 811. 

Twitchell tells witness Kellogg can’t get 20 votes without paying, 811. 


26 


INDEX. 


Twitchell admits bribe to vote for Kellogg, 812. 

Mrs. Kemp bis divorced wife, don’t know reputation since divorce, 843. 

H. 


Houser, Henry, 503-515 (S. W.): 

Blanchard & Jewett, “ work on” election returns, 505, 506, 509, 510, 513. 

Kellogg concedes house Democratic. Parishes must be thrown out, 504, 506, 508, 
510,511. 

Hutton, N. B., 772-775 (K. W.) : 

False registration papers used under, 590 ; see 534. 

Discharge from custom-house in June by mistake ; no reinstatement until the day 
he testified, 774. 

Harris, Hart H., 1083,1084 (Iv. W.): 

Denies Flannagan’s statement that witness bribed De Joie and Stamps for Kel¬ 
logg, 1083. 

[Note. —This witness is not identified as the Harris mentioned by Flannagan.] 

Herbert, Lawrence D., 1137,1150 (Iv. W.): 

In custom-house until coming on to testify, 1137, 1138. 

Denies witnessing bribery of De Lacy and Drew, as stated in De Lacy’s affidavit, 
“at that session of the legislature,” 1137. 

Denies telling Stokes that witness forced Kellogg to put witness in custom-house, 
1138,1139. 

Denies telling Stoke3 that Lewis swore to a lie in Washington, 1140. (See pages 
1203,1204.) 

Denies telling Stokes Lewis bragged about getting witnesses from Cavanac, 1140. 
(See pages 1203, 1204.) 

Contradicted by Cavanac, 1209. 



Intimidation: 

Murray intimidated, 98, 99,121. 

De Lacy intimidated, 168, 169. 

Kepublicans intimidate in ward seven ; Democrats don’t, 590. 

Porter whipped for voting Democratic ticket, 590. 

Affidavits of, were no intimidation, 822, 823. 

Flowers, a Kellogg witness, ostracized for having been a Democrat—works for Kel¬ 
logg to get back, 984. 

J. 

Johnson, Jos. H. (S. W.): 

Witness, 51-56, 483-487. 

Affidavit, 252, 928. 

Testifies that Kellogg addressed caucus, 51, 52. 

Kellogg sent to Souer for money ; got it, 57. 

Denies Buisson read affidavit before taking jurat, 58. 

Admits McGloin read affidavit before taking jurat, 58. 

Admits signing affidavit, 486. 

Dictates, hears, and reads affidavit; says all right, 928. 

Jones, Milton, 906-915. 

Dictated, read, and swore to his affidavit, 923. 

Present at ballot, 865. 

Gets money from Souer to buy mules with, 1136. 

Tells Cavanac in Washington affidavit is true, but would go back on it if sworn j 
too much money, 923. 

Heard Johnson dictate affidavit, 922. 

Came to Cavanac, but Cavanac told him he wanted truth only a id would pay 
nothing, 990. 

Admits bribe, 810, 811. 

Denies bribe, 906, 916. 

Went to Washington in Spofford’s interest, 907. 

Out custom-house then; put in when came back, 910 
Made affidavit under fear, 907. 

At Kellogg’s room talking night before going on stand, 908, 909. 

In custom-house, 909. 

Affidavit not read to him; didn’t swear to it, 910, 911. 

Dictated it, 922. (See pages 986,987. 


INDEX. 


27 


Affidavit corroborates, 912, 913, 914. 

Jones and the boys get money from Souer, 912-914,921. 

Jones wants to be bribed by Souer, 915. 

Disgusted at going back on affidavits, 918. 

Cavanac paid mouey and promised more, 907. 

Cavanac promised protection, no money, 918. 

Jewett, D. M. A., 816-827 (K. W.): 

And Blanchard work on election returns, “upstairs,” 505, 509. 

One poll in seventh ward thrown out on technicalities, 817. 

Returning board uses all means to reverse majorities, 822,823. 

Affidavits supporting protests at custom-house, and otherwise illegal, 822,823. 
Intimidation affidavits where there was no intimidation, 822, 823. 


K. 

W 

Kellogg addressed caucus, 51,52. 

Did not address caucus, 149, 319. (See 327, 1119.) 

Sent legislators to Souer et al. for money, 57,87, 160, 161. 

Sends Williams to depot to watch for Spoffbrd’s witnesses, 557,558. 

Conspiracy, 87. 

Does not want direct rules of law applied to the investigation, 1065. 

Pinchback charges bribery, 161, 162. 

Sends Williams to tell Milton Jones must testify or give back $500 ; Jones won’t, 
960. 

Goes to Washington two dwys after election of Senator, 1120. 

Has witnesses in room at Washington, 172,229-231, 638, 558, 559, 573,595. 

Swazie employed for same purpose as Williams, 953. 

Concedes house Democratic, iiarishes must be thrown out, 504-506, 508,510, 511. 
Pays Williams’s expenses in Washington, and gives him money, 582. 

Letter of introduction brought to, from Anderson, by Williams, 582, 583. 
Considerable opposition to, vanishes day before election, 929. 

Visited by Anderson during canvass, 508, 509. 

Witnesses drink and smoke in room of, before bargain commenced, 562-575. 
Stamps and De Joie paid to vote for, 599-601 ; denied, 1079,1084. 

Tells witnesses must go back on affidavits, can’t be indicted, gives each $500 and 
promises of place in custom-house, 558-560, 562, 576, 581, 960, 561. 

Lewis telegraphs en route with witnesses, 632, 633, 635, 647, 558. 

Sends Williams to bribe Murray to go back on Spofford, offers $5,000,585, 586. 
Sends Swazie to depot to meet witnesses, 632, 633, 635, 547, 754. 

Gives Lewis money to pay Spoftbrd’s witnesses’s board-bills in Washington, who 
had gone back on their affidavits, 652, 654, 655, 581. 

Spofford witnesses get places back in custom-house, 703. 

Bribes Twitchell, money and office, 663, 664, 666, 812. 

Bird says received nothing for voting for Kellogg, 784. 

Gives Clarke direction about Spofford’s witnesses in Washington, 788. 

Cipher telegrams, 789,790,1225,1238. 

Gets Herbert in custom-house, 1204. 

Bribes Jones, 810, 811. 

Tells Jones will not be arrested for going back on affidavit, 810,811. 

Telis caucus will turn government over toNicholls and hell unless elected Senator, 
811, 912. 

Can’t get twenty votes without buying them, 812. 

Says house Democratic, 511. 

Morris Marks tilled custom-house with curs and hounds to keep from squealing 
on, 827, 862. 

Order to Ward to return to Grant Parish not intended to be obeyed, 837. 

Makes arrangements through Swayzie with De Lacy to go back on affidavit, 853. 
Offers Breaux $800 for his vote, 862. 

Afraid of Breaux; tell Marks to give custom-house place, 862. 

Wants Breaux to testify ; Breaux “ can’t stultify ” himself, 865. 

Offers Weber any reasonable amount, 863. 

Talks with witness, Jones, 908, 909. 

Knew Phillips was deceiving Spofford, 944,945. 

Sends Williams to tell Jones must give back the $500, if lie will not testify, 960. 
Gets telegrams from Lewis en route with Spofford’s witnesses, 558. 

Promises bail and lawyers to witnesses if arrested, 560. 

Direction to committee produced by Williams, 560,581. 

Gives Williams letter to Badger to put Williams in custom-house; goes back on 
Williams, 567,576, 577. 

Sends Williams to pay Cavanac, 577,582. 


28 


INDEX. 


Makes Kelly file illegal protest as to Richland Parish, 782, 783. (See vol. 3, Potter 
Committee, p. 171.) 

Manipulating returns with Blanchard and Jewett, 505, 506,509, 510, 513. (For occu¬ 
pation and relations of Blanchard and Jewett, see Potter Committee, vol. 1,1440, 
1449.) 

No quoram of elected members in either house. (See agreed statement of facts 
made at committee. Appendix A, pp. 59,60, 71,77,108.) 

Names of members not elected. (See above.) 

v L. 

Legislature (see legislators, Packard, and Packard bouse): 

Packard members shut up in State house, 92-94, 115, 113, 268, 642. 

No official journal, couldn’t go behind returns, 327, 434. (See 353 et seq., 434.) 
Members poor first week, 110. 

Kept together and supported by receiving money from Souer, 1123,1120. 

The vote for Kellogg, 424. 

Bribed by Souer for Kellogg, 116-118. 

Official journal was New Orleans Republican, 1133. 

Current rumor, 120,799, 809, 810, 950, 976. 

Packard legislature, reputation bad, 793. 

Combination in, 123, 188. 

*• Ring to secure bribe, bought by Kellogg, 8M. 

Kellogg’s election, only act of, in force, 127, 1125. 

Randall names members present at joint session, 265, 266. 

Members dickering with New Orleans legislature, 150, 187, 188, 196-193, 154,155, 
167, 168, 193, 189, 198, 199, 757. 

Makes Kelly file illegal protest as to Richland Parish, 732, 733. (See vol. 3, Potter 
Committee, p. 171. 

Lewis, James, Naval officer, New Orleans (Iv. W.): 

Witness, 624-655. 

Told Murray Kellogg’s case a party question, 98, 99, 121. 

Employs Williams to look after Spofford’s witnesses, for Kellogg, 556-569,570,582. 
Denies giving money to B. Williams, 625. 

Pays Washington witnesses’s board ; gets money from Kellogg, 652-655. 
Intimidates Murray, 98, 99, 121. 

Gueriu not present at ballot, voted next day, 651; quorum, 652. 

Came to Washington with witnesses, 200, 628, 629. 

Tells where ex-Packard legislators are now, 647-650. 

Tampers with witnesses on train—says going to Washington—to help Kellogg, 925, 
229-231 925. 

Came to Washington, why ? 630, 646, 631, 632, 636. 

Wanted to help Kellogg, 632,633, 636. 

Telegraphs Kellogg en route, 632, 633, 647, 635, 558. 

Rooms, sleeps, and eats with witnesses, wrong to go back on their party, 633-635, 
At Kellogg’s room in Washington, sees him daily, 638. 

Denies telling B. Williams to register as Davis, 639. 

Thomas, of Bossier, present, but sick, at joint session, 642, 643. 

Want vouchers for honesty of Packard legislators, 643, 644. 

Cornog’s reputation good, 645. 

Tom Murray worthy of belief, 653,654. 

Has Williams registered M. Davis at hotel, 557. 

Legislators, Packard (see legislature; Packard house) : 

Honesty of, Lewis won’t vouch for, 643, 644. 

Souer advances money to keep in Packard house, 1123,1124. 

Souer doesn’t advance to all alike, 1123,1124. 

Where they are now, 647-650. 

Paid to stay together, 747. 

Reputation bad, 793. 

Colored members bribed for Kellogg, notorious rumor, 799. 

Ward is not surprised at anything they will swear to, 974. 

“ Venal cattle inviting sale,” 991. 

“A good many ” who voted for Kellogg now in custom-house, 1032,1083. 

Members poor first week, 1123,110. 

Demanded money in the caucus, 1124. 

Legardeur, Stephen, 594-599 (S. W.): 

Deslonde, secretary of state, admits no quorum, would so testify, 594-596. 






INDEX. 


29 


Lewis, A. J., 834-837 (S. W.): 

Identifies Franklin’s affidavit, 834. 

Identifies Kelly’s affidavit, 834. 

Affidavits read to Franklin, Kelly, and Blackstone, 831. 
Poll 3, ward 7, not counted; Republican trick, 837. 


M. 


Murray, Thomas, Sergeant-at-arms, Packard house (S. W.): 

Witness, 85—143,213,14, 848—860. 

Testifies Packard members staid in State-house four months day and night, 86. 
Kellogg directed to show members to Souer’s office, 115,192. 

Testifies of bribery, 116-118. 

Testifies Thomas personated by Watson, 140,141. 

Offered place in custom-house, 212,213, 853. 

Expects to make $2,500,177. 

Told Seveignes no untruths wanted, no money paid, 234,237,242 
Corroborated as to quorum by Guieliard, 351. 

Worthy of belief, 653, 654. 

Met by Randall at depot; why Randall conversed about testimony, 1048. 

When men first came to the legislature hard up they went to governor for a little 
money, 91. 

Men showed him money they got for voting for Kellogg, 92. 

Since Badge appointed March last, over twenty ex-members put in court-house, 

101 . 

Members told witness that Souer paid them for voting for Kellogg, 116. 

Moore, W. J., 726-738, 831; now in custom-house, 520 (K. W.): 

Thinks his knowledge worth $1,000 to Democrats, 732. 

Both supervisors and legislative candidate seventh ward counted in by returning- 
board, 520,590, 616,737. 

Admits no quorum, and clerk answers roll-call for members, 521. 

Gets in custom-house and changes mind, 521. 

Wants money on Spoftord’s side, 522, 523. 

Offers P. Williams custom-house place ; asks him “ not to tell,” 522, 523. 

Misled Williams, lied intentionally, 736. 

Admits himself Gardeur and Blackstone not elected; registration frauds,524,534, 
539,541,547,548,803. 

Strikes off Democratic names where he is candidate, 542,545,554,737. 

Gets electiou returns of poll 3, ward 7 ; won’t return them, 616-618. 

Says Kellogg is as much Senator as self, 680, 802, 804. 

Corroborates Peter Williams as to conversation, 731,733. 

Denies saying Kellogg not elected, 733. 

Monier, H. D., 539,540 (S. W.): 

Poll 3,7 ward, peaceable—no protest—returns thrown out, 539. 

Mazet, Jos., 589, 593: 

False registration papers used under Hutton, 772, 775. 

Moore supervisor and candidate, 590. 

Republicans intimidate, Democrats do not, 590. 

Milon, A. E., Packard member, 799-801,1000 ; custom-house, 685. 

Affidavit, 686, 685. 

In combination to control legislature, 686. 

Admits being bribed by Souer to vote for Kellogg, $500, 894, 895. 

Milon who appeared before the committee, not the Milon who made the affidavit, 
1103. 

Marks, Morris (not called as witness): 

Has Williams arrested for embezzlement; wants him to leave New Orleans, 583, 584. 
Fills custom-house with hounds and curs to keep from squealing on Kellogg, 827, 862 

McGloire, Pierre, 1099-1101 (K. W.): 

Denies admitting bribe to Murray, 1100. 

N. 

% 

Norton, George L., 1189-1194 (K. W.) : 

Eavesdrops Tom Murray ; preconcerted plan made by witness, 1192. 

Could see Murray only through crack of door, 1194. 


30 


INDEX. 


P. 

Packard bouse (see legislature and legislators, Packard) : 

Shut up 4 mouths, 86, 92-94,115 ‘202-207, 866, 867. 

In custom-house, 100,101. 

Jurisdiction confined to State-house, 202. 

Members all without means, all poorer class of people, 1123,110. 

Souer keeps members iu by advancing money, 1123, 1124. 

Souer does not advance to all members alike, 1123,1124. 

Never paid any members, 1125. 

Election of Kellogg the only act of, 1125. 

Souer describes process of getting money, 1116 el eeq. 1125, 1131. 

Phillips, W. B., 930-955 (K. W.): 

Character infamous, unworthy of belief under oath, 990,979,939. 

Charged with murder, perjury, forgery, &c., 948,949. 

Spofford offered $2,000 each to parties securing testimony, 931. 

Spoftord offered witness custom-house place, 931. 

Admits writing Spofford, was acting voluntarily without hope or gain; that 
Stewart not kind of witness for Spofford because controlled by money that 
Kellogg sent Kennedy to bribe the boys, and that Spofford wauted only p lain 
truth, 939, 940. 

Spofford gave witness and Ward money, 933, 934. 

• Walker told witness he was instructed to pay nothing, 935. (See 951.) 

Spofford did not ask for false proofs, 936. 

Intended to get false affidavits for protection and money, 938. 

Offered money to Blackstone, Jones, el al., 942. 

Expected witnesses to go back on affidavits, but expressed astonishment and 
offered proof of their perjury, 942-944. 

Always works for pay ; Kellogg indebted to him, 943. 

Kellogg kuew witness was deceiving Spofford, 944, 945. 

Mythical Johnson as Spoiford’s agent, 946, 947. 

Kellogg refused commission on ground of bad character, 948, 949. 

Kellogg’s bribery matter of common rumor, 950. 

Wrote De Lacy’s affidavit, 950. 

Told by Cavanac Spofford wasn’t paying money : if object was not truth and right 
but money, not to come, 951. 

Watched Cavanac; never saw a disreputable thing; saw him asked and refused 
heard him tell witnesses not to swear unless affidavits were true, 951. 

Potter Committee: 

Evidence taken by, introduced in this case, 1149. 

Q. 


Quorum : 

None at Kellogg’s election, 114,117,130-130, 137,521,809,861. 

How arrived at, 355, 356. 

How many made, 129. 

De Lacy says full, 201. 

Lewis says full, 651, 652. 

Several voted day after election, 157. 

Guerin votes next day, 651. 

No quorum Tuesday before election, 268, 297. 

Forced, general rumor, 271. 

Guichard thinks he told sergeant-at-arms ten needed for after roll call 35 
Breaux counted for Kellogg, 384. (See p. 809.) 

Breaux not present, 809. 

Deslonde, secretary of state, says none, 516, 544-546. 

Clerk answers roll-call for members, 521. 

Mantz not present, 809. 

Critical, members kept in, 866, 867. 

Warmoth doesn’t know whether there was a quorum, 387 

R. 

Randall, Wm. L., 258-282,1047-1067 (Iv. W.): 

Minufe clerk Packard legislature. 

Says Seveignes present at joint session 261-268. 


INDEX 


31 


Says Thomas, of Bossier, present at joint session, 231-238. 

Says Thomas, of Bossier, “ in the chair,” 261-268. 

Says Thomas present Tuesday before vote, 268, 

Knew Kellogg’s seat would be contested, 272. 

Met witnesses at depot; went to meet P. Murray only, 1048. 

Why witness talked to Murray about testimony, 1048. 

Veracity tested, 1049. 

Denies being charged with defrauding government, 1049. 

Alleged conversation between Hiram Smedley and witness denied, 1032. 
Testimony of Smedley as to witness’s affidavit, 1052. 

Abstract of testimony of Miss Cecil Beauvois; Randall a notorious liar, 1053,1054 
Put in Treasury Department, November 1, by Kellogg; recommended July, 1879. 
Proved in court unworthy of belief uuder oath, 1(150-1054, &c. 

Returning-Board: 

Outsiders “ work on” election returns, 504-510, 513. 

Parishes must be thrown out, 504,506,508,510, 511. 

Members of, 507 ; where they are now, 647. 

Kellogg manipulating returns with Blanchard aud Jewett, 504, 505, 509, 510, 513. 
(For occupation of Blanchard and Jewett see Potter Committee, vol. 1, pp. 1440, 
1449. See also, Potter Committee, vol. 3, pp. 171-175.) 

Anderson visits Kellogg during time returning-board canvass, “ constant,” 508, 509- 
Poll 3, ward 7, thrown out—no protest—539,547-549,615,616. 

Poll 3, ward 7, thrown out on technicalities, 817, 993. 

Used all means to make Republican majority, 822,823. 

Papers sent from room to room with memoranda what was to be done with them, 
741,742. 

Its clerks, who they were, and where they are, 743. m 

Count Sweazie in, though defeated by 1,200 votes, 761. 

Democrats counted out in ward 7, 993. 

Kellogg makes Kelly file illegal protest as to Richland Parish, vol. 3, Potter Com¬ 
mittee, p. 171. (See evidence, pp. 752 and 783.) 

No quorum of elected members in either house. (See agreed statement of facts 
made at request of committee—Appendix A, pp. 59-60, 71,77-108. 

Names of members not elected. (See above.) 

Registration frauds, 524, 534, 541, 590. 

"Supervisors reports ordered to custom-house; names erased,537,542,545,554,551, 
737, 806, 879. 

25,300 names fraudulently registered, 555. 

Registrar not to be found on election-day, 879. 


Soner, Louis J. (K. W.): 

Gave legislators money for Kellogg, 58, 87,116-118,123,143,156,157,189, 894, 895, 
913,914,921. 

Withholds members vouchers till Kellogg elected, 121. 

Bribes L. Early to vote for Kellogg, 861. 

Bribes M. Jones to vote for Kellogg, 861. 

Executive officer of legislative ring, 881. 

Negotiates with Kellogg, gets and distributes money, 881. 

Explains process by which members get money, 1116 et seq., 1131. 

Voucher stub-book, not a public record ; witness’s private property, 1117. 

Advances money to members, taking warrants as collateral, not to get Kellogg 
votes, 1118; warrants not redeemed, 1120. 

Gives money to Simms, Johnson, Magloire, Milon, et al, 1118,1119. 

Warrants worth from “ 52 % down to nothing,” 1119,1127,1128. 

Denies positively that Kellogg attended caucus, 1119. 

Pays Blackstone no money “except as I did the others,” 1120. 

Pays Blackstone “ on several occasions,” can’t tell how much, 1120. 

Caucus is held from December 26 to January 10, 1123. 

Did not advance on warrants, for all members alike, 1123. 

Object of the advances was to keep members in Packard legislature, 1123,1124. 
Member Packard house, lived in England, 53. 

Lived in the parish he represented about three months in the year, 1128. 

Chairman committee of contingent expenses, 1116. 

Worth from $8,000 to $15,000, January, 1877,1127. 

Advanced about $3,000 to Packard members, 1127. 

Owned no property in his parish; has no family there, 1128. 

In velocipede business in 1868,1129. 


32 


INDEX. 


Does not remember being charged with bribery in 1875; denies being reported 
guilty in the house, 1129. 

Went into Nicholls’s house, 1134. 

Let Jones have money in November and January, 1136. 

Advanced money for members to live on, 1123,1124. 

Advanced money to Jones to buy mules with, 1136. 

Stewart Ross, ex-Packard member, and custom-house officer : 

Stabs Ward, Spofford’s witness, 82, 493,174,175. 

Expelled from the Packard legislature for buying members for N., 757. 

Sweazie, G. A. J.: 

Witness, 749-772, 996-998. 

Came to Washington with Spofford’s witnesses, 200. 

Will testify to bribery unless custom-house place provided, 862. 

Leave of absence from custom-house to come on with witnesses, 635. 

Got salary while absent, 756. 

Didn’t tell Williams got $500 from Kellogg to go back on affidavits, 750. 

Murray offered to leave New Orleans if Republicans would give $3,000, 751 752. 
Murray expected $2,500, but not from Democrats, 752, 753. 

Met Spofford’s witnesses at depot; sent by Kellogg, 754. 

Tells why came to Washington, 756. 

Denies giving Burke list of bought Potter members, 757. 

Was acting in bad faith with Burke, 758 ; admits seeing him, and lied, 760. 
Witness counted in by returning-board, 7(51. 

Stamps, T. B., Packard senator : 

Paid to vote for Kellogg, 599, 601. 

Denies Flannagay’s statement as to bribery of witnesses, 1079. 

De Joie and other Packard legislators voting for Kellogg now in custom-house, 
1082. 

Seveignes, Jules (S. W.): 222, 249 . 

Affidavit, 253,227,228. 

Swore not present at Senatorial vote, 223, 227, 238. 

Made 3 voluntary affidavits, 228. 

Intended to deceive Spofford, 229,247. 

Made affidavit for “ sugar,” 227. 

Didn’t make for “ sugar,” 228. 

Made it to explain how affidavits were manufactured, 228,229,237,246. 

A straightforward lie, 236; not morally wrong, 234. 

Told Murray Brooks not present, 238. 

Views on lying, 234,242,236,238. 

Didn’t vote for Spofford, 248. 

Randall says present at joint session, 261. 

Seymour, W. H., notary, 684-695,1101-1116 (S. W., K. W.) : 

Identifies A. E. Milon’s affidavit, that Souer paid Milon $500 for his vote, 686. 
Milon said the affidavit was true, 684, 685. 

Milon member combination to control legislature, 686. 

Blackstone’s affidavit and Kelly’s, 687, 688, 692, 693, 690,691. 

Milon who made the affidavit not the Milon who appeared before the committee, 
1103. 

State-House: 

Barricaded by Republican managers, 92-94,113-115,268,1072. 

Object to make quorum, 866,867. 

Public not allowed access to, 1072. 

Spofford, II. M.: 

Alleged offers to divide back pay, 297, 955, 956. 

Said was not paying anything, 955, 956,1204,1208. 

Gary complains; no money, 329. 

Ward contradicts about back pay, “he was to pay me right away,” 974. 

Not connected with offer of Nicholls’s legislature to pay necessary expense (not 
compensation to witnesses) of collecting evidence, 1107. 

Employment of Elder not authorized by, 1214. 

Simmes, Richard, 316-323, 448: 

Don’t remember Kellogg’s caucus speech, 319. (See 327.) 

Admits bribery, 668, 669. 

Don’t know Dreifus; paid Colgrave State warrant, 785. 


INDEX. 


33 


Sherman, Jolm: 

P. Williams protests against making custom-house refuge for perjurers and thieves, 
534. 

Sypher, J. Hale, 1028-1038 (K. W.): 

Contradicts Barney Williams. Does not recollect seeing Barney Williams with 
witnesses, except in committee-room. Did not see them with Williams in Kel¬ 
logg’s room, 1034. 

Williams did not have witnesses particularly in charge, 1036. 

Thin ks he knew when witnesses were to arrive, 1036. 

Stokes, Frederick J., 1203-1207: 

Knows L. D. Herbert, 1203. 

Herbert told witness saw two witnesses paid, 1203. 

Herbert told witness that Thomas not present at Kellogg’s election, 1203. 

Herbert told witness that Lewis told him that he (Lewis) had sworn to a lie, 1203. 
Herbert told witness that Lewis boasted of having beaten Cavanac, 1203. 

Herbert says Lewis lied about going to Washington, 1204. 

Herbert says Lewis wasn’t paying money to witnesses, 1204. 

Herbert says Kellogg put him in custom-house. (See Herbert.) 

T. 


Thomas, of Bossier: 

Not at Kellogg’s election, 130-136. 

Personated by Watson, 139,137. 

Randall says at joint session, daily in chair, 261-268. 

Gary substantiates Watson’s personation, 329. 

Sick, but present at election, 151,183, 642, 643. 

Present at vote, 865. 

Tolliver: 

Packard member bribed for Kellogg, 143. 

Tournade, Gustav, 615-619 (S. W.): 

Republican election commenced ; poll 3, ward 7, 615. 

Election peaceable; returns properly made out, 615, 616. 

Moore both supervisor and candidate, 615, 616. 

Moore, Gondolphi, and Gardeur get returns from witness at night and will not re¬ 
turn them, 616-618. 

Twitchell, M. IL, Packard senator, 1085-1099,1195-1201 (K. W.): 

Bribed by Kellogg, “money and office,” 663, 664. 

Admits bribery, 812. 

Consul in Canada, 666,1086. 

Says Kellogg can’t get twenty votes without buying them, 811. 

y. 

Yigers, John, 712, 713: 

A Kellogg vdtness, one brother in custom-house and one in post-office, 712, 713. 


W. 


Ward, William, 964-978 (lv. W.): 

Tells Magloire if money were dealt out to him could do more for Spofford’s cause ; 
the case money out of his pocket, 988. 

Kellogg bribery general rumor, 976. 

Didn’t know r witnesses would go back on affidavits in Washington, 975. 

Not surprised at anything that Packard legislature swear to, 974. 

Told Spofford could prove Kellogg’s electiou was by bribery—don’t mean to be 
false—thought so, 973. 

Stabbed by Ross Stewart; custom-house employ^, 82, 493, 174, 175, 493. 

Spofford will derive $20,000 if successful, but isn’t payiug anything, 955, 956 ; con- 
tradicts this 074. 

First saw Spofford May, 1879; next June 1, and last June 2, 970; unwmrthy of 
belief 990 979 989. 

Kellogg’s order to return to Grant Parish, not intended to be obeyed, 837. 

3 MER 




34 * 


INDEX. 


Getting up evidence for Kellogg before interviewing Spofford, 955, 956. 

The “ no money ” Spofford letter a preconcerted scheme, 955, 966. 

Was trying to make money, works for it, but would like to benefit Kellogg, 972. 

Warrants of Packard government: 

Value of, 108,109, 700,1119, 1127,1128. 

Vouchers withheld until Kellogg elected, 120. 

$400 worth sell for $65, 748. 

Watson, James R. (Iv. W.): 

Witness, 323-341, Packard. 

Personates Thomas, 140, 141. 

Makes affidavit and gets in custom house, 140, 141. 

Says Murray admitted affidavit false, 329. 

Admits writing, signing, and swearing to two affidavits, 331. 

Affidavits forced, 322, 323. 

Defiues quasi affidavits, 330. 

Lying defended—authorized by scripture aud supreme court, Louisiana, 332, 333, 
334, 335. 

Swore to personating Thomas—lie, 334,335. 

Abandons Murray—“ stings of conscience ; ” custom-house, 337, 338. 

Lyiug a right of free American citizens, 339. 

t 

Washington, George : 

Packard member bribed for Kellogg, 143. 

Williams, Peter, 519-539, 843-846, custom-house 525 (S. W.) : 

W. J. Moore, supervising and legislative candidate counted in, 520. 

Admits Kellogg not elected, no quorum, 521. 

Offered custom-house place, asked “ not to tell,” 522, 523. 

Gardeur aud Blackstone not elected ; registration frauds, 524,534. 

Writes Sherman protesting against making custom-house refuge for perjurers and 
thieves, 534. 

Waters, George W. 801-804 (S. W.): 

Moore and Blackstone admit Kellogg not fairly elected, 802-804. 

Moore admits Democratic candidates elected in seventh ward, 803. 

Weber, E. L., 860-865, Packard senator (8. W.): 

No quorum, 861. 

Early admits getting $250 from Souer to vote for Kellogg, 851. 

Jones promised $250 by Souer; gets only $100, aud makes threats, 861. 

Sweazie will testify to bribery unless custom-house place provided, 862. 

Breaux is promised $800 by Kellogg; Kellog afraid of Breaux, 862. 

Baker admits getting $800 for his vote for Kellogg ; witness sees money, 862. 
Kellogg offers “ any reasonable amount,” 863. 

Witness gets $10,000 in State warrants to help make quorum, 863. 

Breaux says cau’t stultify himself by testifying for Kellogg, 861. 

Warmoth, H. C., 886, 887 (Iv. W.): 

Bitter fight for Senatorship, 886. 

Don’t know whether a quorum, 887. 

Determination at onetime to defeat Kellogg’s election by revolutionary means, 887. 
Williams, Barney, for memorialist, 556-586, 956-962. 

Lewis sends to Washington in interest of Kellogg, 556, 569, 570, 582. 

Lewis says register as M. Davis, 557. 

Sees Kellogg, and told to watch depot for witnesses, 557,558. 

Testifies as to Lewis’s telegrams to Kellogg en route , 558. 

Brings Spofford’s witnesses to Kellogg’s room at midnight, 578,579,573-575. 
Kellogg tells witnesses must go back on affidavits, reads the law, &,c.; gives $500 
each, aud promises custom-house places, 960, 581, 575,562, 558, 559. 

Kellogg promises witnesses bail and lawyers if arrested, 560. 

Witnesses say affidavit is true, 561. 

Produces memorandum from Kellogg to witness in Kellogg’s handwriting, 560, 581. 
Witnesses drink and smoke with Kellogg before bargain, 559, 561, 562, 576. 
Kellogg’s efforts to keep witness from testifying, 562,563, 556, 582, 583, 961. 
Anderson’s letter of introduction to Kellogg, 571, 582, 583. 

Anderson’s letter of introduction to Kellogg; its contents, 961. 

Sent by Kellogg to spy Cavanac, 577, 582. 

Kellogg pays Spofford’s witnesse’s board bill, 581. 

Expenses in Washington paid witness aud money given him by Kellogg, 582. 
Marks arrests to get out of city, 583, 584. 



INDEX. 


; } )5 


Kellogg sends to bribe Murray $5,000,585, 586. 

Sweazy employed by Kellogg in Washington for same purposes as witness, 958. 
Never charged with larceny, 965,957,959. 

John A. Walsh contradicts as to payment to witnesses, 1017. 

Contradicted by J. Hale Sypher, 1028. 

Contradicted by John A. Walsh, 1038. 

Walsh, John A., 1038-1044 (K.W.): 

Coutradicts Barney Williams, 1038. 

Sued for defrauding the government, 1039. 

Three indictments, same time, 1876,1041. 

Bailed for $50,000 or $60,000,1041. 

Government contracts of, 1041. 


Z. 


Zacharie, F. C., 990-995 (S. W.): 

On Boatner-Nicholls committee to investigate Kellogg; saw affidavits of Blackstone 
and other ex-members admitting bribery; didn’t report, because knew Kellogg 
could buy up the witnesses, 991. 


o 

9 


/ 





















































' 




































. 







































